HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
9.8.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
204/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 791/2011
of 3 August 2011
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
(3) As
set
out
in
recital
13
of
the
provisional
Regulation,
the
investigation of dumping and injury covered the period
from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 (‘investigation
period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of the trends relevant
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
for the assessment of injury covered the period from
Union,
1 January 2006 to the end of the investigation period
(‘period considered’).
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
2. Subsequent procedure
from countries not members of the European Community ( 1 )
(4)
Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and
(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,
considerations on the basis of which it was decided to
impose provisional anti-dumping measures (‘provisional
disclosure’), several interested parties made written
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European
submissions making known their views on the provi
Commission (‘the Commission’) after having consulted the
sional findings. The parties who so requested were
Advisory Committee,
granted an opportunity to be heard.
(5) The
Commission
continued
to
seek
and
verify
all
Whereas:
information it deemed necessary for its definitive
findings. In addition to the verifications mentioned in
recital 11 of the provisional Regulation, further verifi
cation visits were carried out at the premises of the
A. PROCEDURE
following companies:
1. Provisional measures
(1) By
Regulation
(EU)
No
138/2011
( 2 ) (‘the provisional
Exporting producer which had requested individual
Regulation’) the Commission imposed a provisional
examination:
anti-dumping duty on imports of certain open mesh
fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s
Republic of China (PRC).
— Yuyao Feitian Fiberglass Co. Ltd,
(2) The
proceeding
was
initiated
following
a
complaint
and its related trader:
lodged on 6 April 2010 by Saint-Gobain Vertex s.r.o.,
Tolnatext Fonalfeldolgozó és Müszakiszvetgyártó,
Valmieras stikla iedra AS, and Vitrulan Technical
— Yuyao Winter International Trade Co. Ltd.
Textiles GmbH (‘the complainants’), representing a
major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of the
total Union production of certain open mesh fabrics of
glass fibres.
Unrelated importer in the Union:
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
( 2 ) OJ L 43, 17.2.2011, p. 9.
— Vimaplás – Tecidos Técnicos Lda., Portugal.

---

L 204/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
9.8.2011
(6) All
parties
were
informed
of
the
essential
facts
and (12) It
is
additionally
noted
that
fibreglass
discs
were
not
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to
produced or sold by any of the sampled exporting
recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping
producers in the PRC or Union producers.
duty on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass
fibres originating in the PRC and the definitive collection
of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty
(‘final disclosure’). All parties were granted a period of
time within which they could make representations
(13) One
Union
producer
of
fibreglass
discs
which
came
subsequent to this final disclosure.
forward after the imposition of provisional measures
argued that fibreglass discs should not be excluded
from the product scope. It claimed that fibreglass discs
are not a downstream product but that a clear line
between the product concerned and a downstream
(7) The
oral
and
written
comments
submitted
by
the
product should be drawn at the stage when open mesh
interested parties were considered and taken into
rolls are coated. According to the company, the coating
account where appropriate.
of open mesh rolls used in the construction sector is
different from that of open mesh rolls that are later
used for making fibreglass discs. In the latter case the
rolls are coated with phenol resin. In other words, the
B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
chemical characteristics of open mesh rolls intended for
making fibreglass discs are allegedly identical to those of
1. Product concerned
the fibreglass discs. According to the company these
types of open mesh rolls cannot be used in construction
(8) The
product
concerned
is,
as
set
out
in
recital
14
of
the
reinforcement, which is the main application of the
provisional Regulation, open mesh fabrics of glass fibres,
product concerned. Therefore the company argued that
of a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in
if fibreglass discs were to be excluded from the product
width and weighing more than 35 g/m 2 originating in
scope, open mesh rolls coated with phenol resin should
the PRC (‘the product concerned’) and currently falling
also be excluded.
within CN codes ex 7019 40 00, ex 7019 51 00,
ex 7019 59 00, ex 7019 90 91 and ex 7019 90 99.
(14) As
explained
in
recital
13
the
company
came
forward
(9) After
the
imposition
of
provisional
measures,
a
further
only after the imposition of provisional measures and
analysis showed that the product concerned cannot be
thus did not provide verifiable data in support of its
classified under three of the five CN codes referred to in
claims. As no data was available from the investigation
recital 8. Therefore CN codes ex
7019
90
91,
with regard to the different types of coating used, the
ex 7019 90 99 and ex 7019 40 00 should be removed
company’s claim could not be assessed in light of data
from the description of the product concerned.
obtained from the investigation. Moreover, regardless the
coating, different types of open mesh rolls share the
same basic physical characteristics and therefore open
mesh rolls coated with phenol resin should not be
excluded. This claim was therefore rejected.
(10) It is also recalled that, as explained in recital 16 of the
provisional Regulation, one Chinese exporting producer
requested clarification whether fibreglass discs are
included in the product definition. The Union industry
was of the opinion that fibreglass discs are a downstream
(15) Based on the data gathered during the investigation and
product with different characteristics than those of the
the evidence submitted by the exporting producer
product concerned. However, it was decided to collect
mentioned in recital 10, the Union industry and FEPA
further information from interested parties before
in their comments to the provisional disclosure, the
making a definitive conclusion on this issue.
claim to exclude fibreglass discs from the product
scope is hereby accepted. It is thus concluded that
fibreglass discs as a downstream product do not share
the same physical characteristics and have different uses
as compared to open mesh fabrics and therefore should
(11) Further to the provisional disclosure, evidence was
submitted by the Union industry and the Federation of
be excluded from the definition of the product concerned
European Producers of Abrasives (‘FEPA’) representing the
as defined in the provisional Regulation. Fibreglass discs
users of the fibreglass discs showing that there are a
are therefore definitively excluded from the proceeding.
number of steps in the production process that have to
be undertaken to convert glass fibre open mesh fabric
into fibreglass discs. The physical shape of the disc is also
different from the product concerned which is normally
2. Like product
supplied in rolls (narrow or wide) and it is also normally
intended for a different end use (reinforcement of
(16) In the absence of any other comments regarding the like
grinding wheels). These arguments were shared by the
product, recital 17 of the provisional Regulation is
Chinese exporting producer.
hereby confirmed.

---

EN
9.8.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
204/3
C. DUMPING
disproportionate since the company has cooperated
within the course of the proceeding and is subject to
1. Market Economy Treatment (MET)
the highest duty rate like the non-cooperating
companies and the company subject to Article 18 of
(17) As set out in recitals 18 to 32 of the provisional Regu
the basic Regulation. In this regard it is noted that the
lation, it was initially proposed to grant MET to two
company is subject to a duty which is the result of the
companies but at a later stage of the proceeding it was
usual methodology applied for companies granted IT.
decided to reverse this proposal after investigating alle
gations received concerning the MET status of the
companies concerned which were found to be correct.
(24) In the absence of any other comments concerning MET,
recitals 18 to 32 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
confirmed.
(18) One
exporting
producer,
to
which
Article
18
of
the
basic
Regulation was applied, reiterated the arguments already
brought forward when it was informed that the
2. Individual Examination (IE)
Commission intended to refuse MET. It argued again
that the Articles of Association and the Joint Venture
(25) As
set
out
in
recital
37
of
the
provisional
Regulation,
a
Contract received by the Commission were an old
non-sampled group of related companies requested indi
version which never entered into force and had
vidual examination in accordance with Article 17(3) of
therefore no impact on the findings of the company’s
the basic Regulation and replied to the MET claim form
MET assessment.
within the given deadline.
(26) As
mentioned
in
recital
5
a
verification
visit
was
carried
(19) As set out in recital 28 of the provisional Regulation,
out at the premises of the group of related companies
these arguments could not remove the doubts on the
and it was found that the companies did not meet
authenticity of the initial documents and information
criteria 1, 2 and 3 of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regu
provided by the exporting producer in its MET Claim
lation.
form submission.
(27) With
regard
to
criterion
1,
the
two
related
companies
(20) With
regard
to
the
argument
that
the
application
of
the
failed to provide sufficient evidence concerning the share
Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation is disproportionate
holders’ contribution to the companies’ capital. The
in this case, the Commission applies the provisions of
shareholders took over the companies initially established
this Article on a case-by-case basis according to the
with State funds without paying any contribution them
merits of each case. In the present proceeding the use
selves. In addition, contrary to the requirements of the
of this Article has been considered appropriate as already
Articles of Association, no shareholders’ meetings were
indicated in recitals 26, 27 and 31 of the provisional
held, no minutes of these meetings were provided raising
Regulation, since the provision of the falsified
doubts whether business decisions were taken by the
documents casts doubts on all documents provided by
shareholders without any State interference. In light of
the company.
the above, it is considered that the companies could not
demonstrate that their business decisions are not made
without significant State interference.
(21) The second exporting producer to which MET was
refused but Individual Treatment (IT) granted instead,
(28) With
regard
to
criterion
2,
the
investigation
showed
that
disputed the grounds on which the Commission had
the accounting records of two related companies were
reversed its decision. They considered that there was no
not audited in line with international accounting
new compelling evidence that would significantly
standards since they contained a number of accounting
undermine the original findings to justify the repeal of
shortcomings and errors such as taxes booked/paid;
the initial decision for granting MET. They argued that
continuous errors in dividends payable account; and
the inaccuracies and incompleteness found in their
missing depreciation were found which were not
financial statements and not reported by the auditor
mentioned in the audit reports.
had no material impact on the reliability of these
accounts.
(29) Concerning
criterion
3,
one
related
company
failed
to
provide their Land Use Right Agreement, no booking
in their accounts was found and no proof of payment
(22) As set out in recital 30 of the provisional Regulation,
these arguments could not remove the doubts as to the
was provided. The second company obtained a land use
accuracy and completeness of the figures presented in the
right from its related company at no cost which is not
financial statements.
booked in its records and thus not depreciated.


(30) In view of the above it was proposed to refuse MET to
(23) They
also
consider
that
the
outcome
of
the
investigation
the group of companies that requested individual exam
and their individual duty rate is unfair and
ination.

---

L 204/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
9.8.2011
(31) The
Commission
officially
disclosed
the
results
of
the
country in accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic
MET findings to the group of related companies
Regulation. Recitals 39 to 45 of the provisional Regu
concerned in the PRC and to the complainants. They
lation are hereby confirmed.
were also given an opportunity to make their views
known in writing and to request a hearing if there
were particular reasons to be heard. No comments
were received following disclosure of the MET findings.
(b) Determination of normal value
(39) It
is
recalled
that
it
was
considered
more
appropriate
to
construct normal value in order to take into account
3. Individual Treatment (IT)
differences in quality between the like product
produced and sold in Canada and the product
(32) It
was
provisionally
established
that
one
of
the
sampled
concerned from the PRC. Normal value was therefore
exporting producer group of companies in the PRC to
constructed using the cost of manufacturing of the
which MET was denied, met all the requirements for IT.
Canadian producer plus a reasonable amount for
selling, general and administrative expenses (‘SG&A’)
and for profit on the domestic market.
(33) In
addition,
as
set
out
in
recital
35
of
the
provisional
Regulation, the exporting producer to which MET was
reversed, met the conditions of Article 9(5) of the basic
(40) The
companies
that
were
granted
IT
disputed
the
calcu
Regulation to be granted IT instead.
lation of the constructed normal value (‘NV’), and one of
them particularly questioned whether it was constructed
per product type. It was confirmed that the NV was
(34) The
Union
industry
questioned
the
decision
to
grant
IT
constructed per product type on the basis of data
to the company for which the decision to grant MET was
obtained from the sole producer of the product
reversed, claiming that the incomplete accounts and the
concerned in the analogue country. Given the need for
discrepancies discredit the entire dataset of the company.
confidentiality, NV was disclosed in the form of price
However, it was found that the irregularities found in the
ranges.
accounts had no impact on the reliability of the export
prices of the company. The claim of the Union industry
was therefore rejected.
(41) Three
parties
claimed
that
the
disclosed
NV
did
not
provide a reasonable understanding of the facts and
considerations on the basis of which the dumping
(35) In
view
of
the
above,
the
initial
conclusion
that
two
of
margin was determined. All companies requested more
the three sampled exporting producers met all
details on the construction of the NV including the
requirements for IT is therefore confirmed. Recitals 33
amount of the various adjustments made to the NV in
to 36 of the provisional Regulation with regard to IT are
order to take into account the quality differences.
hereby confirmed.
However, having regard to the obligation to respect
confidentiality of the data, it was considered that the
companies were provided with all the information that
(36) In addition, the group of the two related companies that
could be disclosed.
requested individual examination, also requested IT,
should the investigation establish that they did not
meet the conditions for MET. It was found that they
fulfilled the conditions of Article 9(5) of the basic Regu
(42) Therefore this claim was rejected. Recitals 46 to 49 of
the provisional Regulation with regard to the deter
lation to be granted IT.
mination of the normal value are hereby confirmed.
(37) The
Union
industry
questioned
also
the
decision
to
grant
IT to the group of two related companies claiming that
(c) Export prices for the exporting producers granted IT
as the companies’ data was proven to be unreliable for
(43) One of the companies granted IT at the provisional stage,
the assessment of MET then this data could not be
requested explanation of the calculation of the packaging
considered sufficient for granting IT. The claim of the
costs as they considered that the disclosed data on
Union industry was rejected as it was found that the
packaging did not show a consistent correlation to
irregularities identified in regard to the MET assessment
either the volume or the value of transactions. Since
had no impact on the eligibility for an individual duty
this company had not claimed any packaging costs in
rate and therefore IT could be granted.
its reply to the anti-dumping questionnaire, packaging
cost was therefore calculated on the basis of information
obtained from the other two sampled exporting
4. Normal value
producers.
(a) Choice of the analogue country
(38) No comments were received
on the choice of the
(44) In
the
absence
of
any
other
comments
with
regard
to
the
analogue country. Therefore, it is confirmed that
determination of the export price, recital 50 of the provi
Canada was an appropriate and reasonable analogue
sional Regulation is hereby confirmed.

---

EN
9.8.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
204/5
(45) Following
disclosure
of
the
definitive
findings,
the
group
frontier price, duty unpaid and recital 58 of the provi
of related companies that is to be granted IT claimed that
sional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
commission costs should not have been taken into
account while calculating the various allowances
deducted from the export price. The claim was
D. INJURY
accepted and export price was adjusted accordingly
while the group’s dumping margin was revised as a
1. Union production
result.
(51) It is made clear that in recital 59 of the provisional
Regulation the term ‘Union industry’ refers to all Union
producers. In the absence of any comments concerning
(d) Comparison
the Union production, recital 60 of the provisional Regu
lation is hereby confirmed.
(46) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
with
regard
to
the
comparison of the normal value and the export prices
on an ex-works basis, recitals 51 and 52 of the provi
sional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
2. Union consumption
(52) As
explained
in recital
9, CN codes ex
7019
90
91,
ex 7019 90 99 and ex 7019 40 00 should be removed
5. Dumping margins
from the description of the product concerned. The
exclusion of these codes did not alter the findings as
(a) For the cooperating exporting producers granted IT
regards Union consumption, including imports, which
were based on figures contained in the complaint,
(47) One
importer
of
the
product
concerned
in
the
Union
supplemented by verified figures obtained from coop
welcomed the imposition of the provisional measures
erating companies and Eurostat figures.
as they would restore the import price to non-injurious
levels. Nevertheless, he considered that a difference of
more than 10 % between the various duties imposed
could distort the market. Hence, he requested that the
(53) In the absence of any comments concerning the Union
measures be revised so that the company granted IT
consumption, recitals 61 to 63 of the provisional Regu
subject to the lower individual duty rate should not
lation are hereby confirmed.
benefit from it. The importer claimed that the risk of
circumvention from the exporting producer with the
lower individual duty rate was increased. However, no
3. Imports from the country concerned
additional information or proof was provided to
substantiate this claim, it was therefore disregarded.
(54) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
concerning
the
volume,
price and market share of the dumped imports from the
country concerned, the findings set out in recitals 64 to
66 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
(48) On
this
basis
the
definitive
dumping
margins
expressed
as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty
unpaid, are:
(55) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
concerning
price
under
cutting, the methodology described in recitals 67 and 68
of the provisional Regulation to establish price under
cutting, including the quality adjustment is confirmed.
Definitive
However, following the individual examination granted
Company
dumping
after the imposition of provisional measures to one
margin
group of exporting producers in the PRC, the price
Yuyao Mingda Fiberglass Co., Ltd 62,9
%
comparison of similar product types was reassessed.
This reassessment confirmed that the dumped imports
Grand Composite Co., Ltd and its related
from the PRC were undercutting the Union industry’s
company Ningbo Grand Fiberglass Co., Ltd
48,4 %
prices by 30-35 % during the IP.
Yuyao Feitian Fiberglass Co., Ltd 60,7
%
4. Situation of the Union industry
(b) For all other exporting producers
(56) In the absence of any comments regarding the situation

of the Union industry, recitals 69 to 84 of the provi
(49) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
with
regard
to
the
sional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
dumping margins, recitals 53 to 57 of the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.
5. Conclusion on injury
(57) In the absence of any comments regarding the
(50) On
this basis the countrywide level of dumping is
conclusion on injury, recitals 85 to 87 of the provisional
definitely established at 62,9 % of the CIF Union
Regulation are hereby confirmed.

---

L 204/6
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
9.8.2011
E. CAUSATION
anti-dumping duties on imports of open mesh fabrics of
glass fibres originating in the PRC.
1. Effects of the dumped imports
(58) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
regarding
effects
of
the
dumped imports, recitals 89 to 91 of the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.
G. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
1. Injury elimination level
2. Effects of other factors
(66) Further to the provisional disclosure one Chinese
exporting producer claimed that it was not provided
(59) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
regarding
effects
of
with sufficiently detailed data on its injury margin calcu
other factors, recitals 92 to 96 of the provisional Regu
lation as data regarding the volumes, values and prices of
lation are hereby confirmed.
the Union industry per product type were not disclosed.
The company argued that since the sample consisted of
four Union producers this information could not be
3. Conclusion on causation
considered as confidential. However, it should be noted
that some product types were sold in the IP by a very
(60) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
regarding
conclusion
on
limited number of Union producers. It was therefore
causation, recitals 97 to 99 of the provisional Regulation
considered prudent not to disclose prices, volumes and
are hereby confirmed.
values of such transactions. Furthermore, revealing the
detailed figures for each and every product type is not
considered necessary in order to provide parties with a
F. UNION INTEREST
sufficient understanding of the calculation methodology
and the result of the calculation.
1. Interest of the Union industry
(61) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
with
regard
to
the
interest of the Union industry, recitals 101 to 103 of
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
(67) The
same
Chinese
exporting
producer
questioned
the
target profit used in the injury margin calculation, in
particular the fact that the target profit was identical to
the Union industry’s weighted average profit during the
2. Interest of importers
IP. It also questioned the use of the data from the
(62) In the absence of comments on the interest of importers,
sampled Union producers when establishing the target
it was concluded that the imposition of definitive
profit as opposed to data referring to the Union
measures on imports of the product concerned would
industry as a whole. Finally, it questioned the level of
not be against the interests of importers.
the target profit used compared to the one used in
another recent investigation concerning a closely related
product sector.
3. Interest of users and consumers
(63) It is recalled that at the provisional stage of the investi
gation no cooperation of users or consumers’ organ
(68) As
explained
in
recital
112
of
the
provisional
Regulation
izations was received. Following the publication of the
the target profit reflects the average profit achieved by
provisional Regulation, one users’ association submitted
the Union industry in the years 2006-07 whereas the
comments. However, the comments addressed only the
weighted average profit in the IP was calculated based
potential negative impact of imposition of measures on
on the data of the four sampled companies. In addition,
the fibreglass discs, should they not be excluded from the
as explained in recital 79 of the provisional Regulation
product scope. As described in recital 15 it is considered
this profit did not take into account the extraordinary
that the fibreglass discs should be excluded from the
restructuring costs reported by some of the sampled
product scope. Therefore the imposition of definitive
producers. It is therefore a mere coincidence that these
anti-dumping measures will not have a negative impact
two profit figures are identical.
on users of fibreglass discs.
(64) In
the
absence
of
any
other
comments
on
the
interest
of
(69) As
regards
the
question
of
which
data
to
use
for
the
users and consumers, it was concluded that the
determination of the target profit, it should be noted
imposition of definitive measures on imports of the
that when sampling is applied, the profit level is one
product concerned would not be against their interests.
of the micro indicators of the injury analysis.
Consequently the figure established for the sample is
deemed representative for the Union industry as a
4. Conclusion on Union interest
whole. In an investigation where sampling is applied,
the target profit used in the injury margin calculation
(65) Based
on
the
above
it
was
concluded
that
there
are
no
is always based on data collected from the sampled
compelling reasons against the imposition of definitive
companies.

---

EN
9.8.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
204/7
(70) Finally, regarding the reference made to the target profit
(74) On
this
basis,
the
definitive
injury
margins
expressed
as
a
used in another anti-dumping investigation, it should be
percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid,
underlined that the findings and conclusions of each
are:
investigation are based on the data collected from the
cooperating companies of each investigation, for a
Company
Definitive injury
specific product description and period of time.
margin
Therefore it is impossible to draw a direct link between
the findings of these two separate investigations and two
Yuyao Mingda Fiberglass Co., Ltd
69,1 %
different IP.
Grand Composite Co., Ltd and its related
company Ningbo Grand Fiberglass Co., Ltd
77,4 %
(71) With
regard
to
the
injury
elimination
level,
as
a
result
of
Yuayo Feitian Fiberglass Co., Ltd
87,6 %
the correction of a clerical error in the calculation of the
provisional injury margin concerning one exporting
Sample weighted average for the cooperating
producer its margin was adjusted upward. This fact
exporting producers not included in the
72,1 %
however does not affect the level of the anti-dumping
sample
duty of this company since the duty is based on the
dumping margin.
Residual margin for non-cooperating
exporting producers and Ningbo Weishan
87,6 %
Duo Bao Building Materials Co., Ltd
(72) It should also be noted that as a result of granting IT to
another group of Chinese exporting producers as
explained in recital 32, an individual injury margin was
2. Definitive measures
calculated for them.
(75) In
the
light
of
the
foregoing,
it
is
considered
that,
in
accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation,
definitive anti-dumping measures should be imposed in
(73) As
a
consequence
of
revisions
referred
to
in
recital
71
respect of imports of the product concerned at the level
the weighted average injury margin for the cooperating
of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins, in
exporting producers not included in the sample and the
accordance with the lesser duty rule. Accordingly, all
residual injury margin for non-cooperating producers
duty rates should be set at the level of the dumping
were also revised.
margins found.
(76) The
proposed
anti-dumping
duties
are
the
following:
Company
Injury elimination
margin
Dumping margin Anti-dumping duty
rate
Yuyao Mingda Fiberglass Co., Ltd
69,1 % 62,9
% 62,9
%
Grand Composite Co., Ltd and its related company
Ningbo Grand Fiberglass Co., Ltd
77,4 % 48,4
% 48,4
%
Yuayo Feitian Fiberglass Co., Ltd
87,6 % 60,7
% 60,7
%
Sample weighted average for the cooperating exporting
producers not included in the sample
72,1 % 57,7
% 57,7
%
Residual for non-cooperating exporting producers and
Ningbo Weishan Duo Bao Building Materials Co., Ltd
87,6 % 62,9
% 62,9
%
(77) The
individual
company
anti-dumping
duty
rates
specified
in
this
Regulation
were
established
on
the
basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during
that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the countrywide
duty applicable to ‘all other companies’) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products
originating in the People’s Republic of China and produced by the companies and thus by the
specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically
mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities
related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the
duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.

---

L 204/8
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
9.8.2011
(78) Any
claim
requesting
the
application
of
an
individual
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
company anti-dumping duty rate (e.g. following a
change in the name of the entity or following the
setting up of new production or sales entities) should
be addressed to the Commission ( 1 ) forthwith with all
relevant information, in particular any modification in
Article 1
the company’s activities linked to production, domestic
and export sales associated with, for example, that name
1. A
definitive
anti-dumping
duty
is
hereby
imposed
on
change or that change in the production and sales
imports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of a cell size of
entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will then be
more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and weighing
amended accordingly by updating the list of companies
more than 35 g/m 2 , excluding fibreglass discs, currently falling
benefiting from individual duty rates.
within CN codes ex 7019 51 00 and ex 7019 59 00 (TARIC
codes 7019 51 00 10 and 7019 59 00 10) and originating in
the People’s Republic of China.
(79) All
parties
were
informed
of
the
essential
facts
and
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to
recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping
2. The
rate
of
the
definitive
anti-dumping
duty
applicable
to
duties. They were also granted a period within which
the net, free-at-Union frontier price, before duty, of the product
they could make representations subsequent to final
described in paragraph 1 and produced by the companies below
disclosure. The comments submitted by the parties
shall be as follows:
were duly considered, and, where appropriate, the
findings have been modified accordingly.
Company Duty
(%)
TARIC additional
code
(80) The
group
of
two
related
companies
that
requested
indi
vidual examination and was granted IT expressed its
Yuyao Mingda Fiberglass Co., Ltd
intention to offer an undertaking. However, the group
62,9 B006
did not send any offer for undertaking within the
deadline set out in Article 8(2) of the basic Regulation
Grand Composite Co., Ltd and its
and thus it could not be taken into consideration.
related company Ningbo Grand
48,4 B007
Fiberglass Co., Ltd
Yuyao Feitian Fiberglass Co., Ltd
60,7 B122
(81) In
order
to
ensure
equal
treatment
between
any
new
exporters and the cooperating companies not included
Companies listed in Annex I
57,7 B008
in the sample, mentioned in the Annex to this Regu
lation, provision should be made for the weighted
All other companies
62,9 B999
average duty imposed on the latter companies to be
applied to any new exporters which would otherwise
be entitled to a review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the
basic Regulation as that Article does not apply where
sampling has been used.
3. The
application
of
the
individual
duty
rates
specified
for
the companies mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be conditional
upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member
States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the
3. Definitive collection of provisional duties
requirements set out in Annex II. If no such invoice is

presented, the duty applicable to all other companies shall
(82) In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found
apply.
and in the light of the level of the injury caused to the
Union industry, it is considered necessary that the
amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-
dumping duty, imposed by the provisional Regulation,
4. Unless
otherwise
specified,
the
provisions
in
force
be definitively collected to the extent of the amount of
concerning customs duties shall apply.
the definitive duties imposed. As fibreglass discs are now
excluded from the product scope (see recital 15), the
amounts provisionally secured on imports of fibreglass
discs should be released. Where the definitive duties are
lower than the provisional duties, amounts provisionally
Article 2
secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping
duties shall be released,
1. The
amounts
secured
by
way
of
the
provisional
anti-
dumping duty pursuant to Commission Regulation (EU)
( 1 ) European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate H,
No 138/2011 on imports of fibreglass discs originating in the
Office N105 04/090, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGI.
People’s Republic of China shall be released upon request.

---

EN
9.8.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
204/9
2. The
amounts
secured
by
way
of
the
provisional
anti- — it is not related to any of the exporters or producers in the
dumping duty pursuant to Commission Regulation (EU)
People’s Republic of China which are subject to the
No 138/2011 on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of
measures imposed by this Regulation,
glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China shall
be definitively collected in so far as it concerns products
currently falling within CN codes ex
7019
51
00 and
— it has actually exported to the Union the product concerned
ex 7019 59 00. The amounts secured in excess of the definitive
after the investigation period on which the measures are
rates of the anti-dumping duty shall be released, including
based, or it has entered into an irrevocable contractual obli
amounts which would have been secured for products
gation to export a significant quantity to the Union,
currently falling within CN codes ex
7019
40
00,
ex 7019 90 91 and ex 7019 90 99.
the Council, acting by simple majority on a proposal submitted
by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,
Article 3
may amend Article 1(2) by adding the new exporting producer
to the cooperating companies not included in the sample and
Where any new exporting producer in the People’s Republic of
thus subject to the weighted average duty rate of 57,7 %.
China provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that:
Article 4
— it did not export to the Union the product described in
Article 1(1) during the investigation period (1 April 2009
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its
to 30 March 2010),
publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 3 August 2011.
For the Council
The President
M. DOWGIELEWICZ

---

L 204/10
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
9.8.2011
ANNEX I
CHINESE COOPERATING EXPORTING PRODUCERS, NOT SAMPLED (TARIC ADDITIONAL CODE B008)
Jiangxi Dahua Fiberglass Group Co., Ltd
Lanxi Jialu Fiberglass Net Industry Co., Ltd
Cixi Oulong Fiberglass Co., Ltd
Jiangsu Tianyu Fibre Co., Ltd
Jia Xin Jinwei Fiber Glass Products Co., Ltd
Jiangsu Jiuding New Material Co., Ltd
Changshu Jiangnan Glass Fiber Co., Ltd
Shandong Shenghao Fiber Glass Co., Ltd
Yuyao Yuanda Fiberglass Mesh Co., Ltd
Ningbo Kingsun Imp & Exp Co., Ltd
Ningbo Integrated Plasticizing Co., Ltd
Nankang Luobian Glass Fibre Co., Ltd
Changshu Dongyu Insulated Compound Materials Co., Ltd
ANNEX II
A declaration signed by an official of the entity issuing the commercial invoice, in the following format, must appear on
the valid commercial invoice referred to in Article 1(3):
(1) the name and function of the official of the entity issuing the commercial invoice;
(2) the following declaration:
‘I, the undersigned, certify that the (volume) of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres sold for export to the European
Union covered by this invoice was manufactured by (company name and registered seat) (TARIC additional code) in
the People’s Republic of China. I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.
Date and signature’.

---