HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
9.11.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
310/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1039/2012
of 29 October 2012
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
imports of aluminium radiators originating in the People’s Republic of China
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
1.2. Subsequent procedure
(4)
Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
considerations on the basis of which it was decided to
Union,
impose a provisional anti-dumping duty (‘provisional
disclosure’), several interested parties made written
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
submissions making known their views on the
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
provisional findings. The parties who so requested were
from countries not members of the European Union ( 1 ) (‘the
granted an opportunity to be heard.
basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European
(5) The
Commission
continued
to
seek
and
verify
all
Commission (‘the Commission’) after having consulted the
information it deemed necessary for its definitive
Advisory Committee,
findings. The oral and written comments submitted by
the interested parties were considered and, where appro
Whereas:
priate, the provisional findings were modified accord
ingly.
1. PROCEDURE
1.1. Provisional measures
(6) As
already
mentioned
in
recital
(12)
of
the
provisional
Regulation, one group of related exporting producers
(1) The
Commission,
by
Regulation
(EU)
No
402/2012
( 2 )
claimed individual examination in accordance with
(‘the provisional Regulation’), imposed a provisional
Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation. The examination
anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium radiators
of those claims at the provisional stage was too
originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’ or
burdensome to be carried out and was deferred to the
‘the country concerned’).
definitive stage. It was thus decided to grant an individual
examination to the group claiming it, i.e. the Sira Group.
(2) The
proceeding
was
initiated
on
12
August
2011
( 3 ),
In respect of its operations in the PRC, the Sira Group is
following a complaint lodged by the International
composed of Sira (Tianjin) Aluminium Products Co. Ltd
Association of Aluminium Radiator Manufacturers
and Sira Group (Tianjin) Heating Radiators Co. Ltd
Limited Liability Consortium (AIRAL S.c.r.l. - ‘the
complainant’) on behalf of producers representing more
than 25 % of total Union production of aluminium radi
ators.
(7) All
parties
were
informed
of
the
essential
facts
and
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to
recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping
(3) As
set
out
in
recital
(14)
of
the
provisional
Regulation,
duty on imports of aluminium radiators originating in
the investigation of dumping and injury covered the
the PRC and the definitive collection of the amounts
period from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 (‘the investi
secured by way of the provisional duty (‘final disclosure’).
gation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of trends relevant
All parties were granted a period within which they
for the assessment of injury covered the period from
could make comments on this final disclosure.
1 January 2008 to the end of the IP (‘the period
considered’).
(8) The
oral
and
written
comments
submitted
by
the
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
( 2 ) OJ L 124, 11.5.2012, p. 17.
interested parties were considered and taken into
( 3 ) OJ C 236, 12.8.2011, p. 18.
account where appropriate.

---

L 310/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
9.11.2012
2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
(16) Pursuant
to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation,
normal value for imports originating in the PRC shall
(9) As
set
out
in
recital
(15)
of
the
provisional
Regulation,
be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of
the product concerned is aluminium radiators and
the said Article for those producers which were found to
elements or sections of which such radiator is
meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic
composed, whether or not such elements are assembled
Regulation. Briefly and for ease of reference only, these
in blocks, excluding radiators and elements and sections
criteria are set out in summarised form below:
thereof of the electrical type (‘the product concerned’).
The product concerned currently falls within CN codes,
ex 7615 10 10, ex 7615 10 90, ex 7616 99 10 and
ex 7616 99 90.
— business decisions are made in response to market

signals, without significant State interference, and
costs reflect market values,
(10) After
publication of provisional
measures,
one party
claimed that steel radiators are interchangeable with the
product concerned and the like product and asked the
— firms have one clear set of independently audited
Commission to analyse and include the steel radiator
accounting records,
market trend to compare it in particular with the
market of aluminium radiators.
— there are no distortions carried over from the non-
market economy system,
(11) Based on information available, it appears that
aluminium radiators have different technical character
istics, especially as concerning the basic raw material
— bankruptcy and property laws guarantee stability and
(steel in one case and aluminium on the other), the
legal certainty, and
weight, the thermal inertia and the heat conductibility.
Furthermore, the information collected did not point to
direct competition and interchangeability between the
two products. Finally, the party did not provide any
— exchange rate conversions are carried out at market
evidence to support its allegations. Based on the above,
rates.
the claim was rejected.
(17) The information provided by the two companies
(12) In
the
absence
of
other
comments
regarding
the
product
belonging to the Sira Group in the MET claim forms
concerned and the like product, recitals (15) and (23) of
was duly analysed and further information was
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
requested and obtained. In view of the findings it was
not considered necessary to conduct a verification visit at
the premises of the companies.
3. DUMPING
3.1. Market Economy Treatment (‘MET’) and Indi
(18) The MET investigation demonstrated that the Sira Group
vidual Treatment (‘IT’)
failed to meet the requirements of criterion 1 because of
State interference in decisions concerning the main raw
3.1.1. Preliminary Remark
material, aluminium. The cost of aluminium represents
(13) As
already
mentioned
in
recital
(6)
above,
it
was
decided
ca. 70 % of the cost of production of the product
to grant an individual examination to the Sira Group. In
concerned. The investigation demonstrated that both
respect of its operations in the PRC, the Sira Group is
producers in the Sira Group acquired the aluminium
composed of Sira (Tianjin) Aluminium Products Co. Ltd
used for the production of the product concerned on
and Sira Group (Tianjin) Heating Radiators Co. Ltd The
the Chinese domestic market. Prices are based on the
Sira Group also claimed market economy treatment or
quotation of aluminium in the State-controlled
individual treatment.
Shanghai Non-ferrous Metal Exchange market (‘the
Exchange’ or ‘SHFE’). The SHFE is a closed exchange
for Chinese-registered companies and Chinese citizens
3.1.2. MET
and it is controlled by the State Securities Regulatory
Commission. Several rules governing the functioning of
(14) It is recalled that, as mentioned in recitals (30) to (31) of
the Exchange contribute to low volatility and depressed
the provisional Regulation, none of the sampled parties
prices at the SHFE: daily price fluctuations are limited to
had claimed MET.
4 % above or below the settlement price of the previous
trading day, trading happens at a low frequency (until the
15th day of each month), futures contracts are limited to
(15) As
mentioned
above
in
recital
(13),
the
Sira
Group,
a duration of up to 12 months, and transaction fees are
which was granted individual examination after the
charged by both the Exchange and brokers.
imposition of provisional measures, claimed MET and
submitted MET claim forms for the two companies
involved in the production and commercialisation of
(19) Moreover, as concerns SHFE transactions, physical
the product concerned.
deliveries can only take place in an approved

---

EN
9.11.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
310/3
warehouse within the PRC, unlike international
piling plan involved buying from several Chinese
exchanges, where delivery can take place worldwide.
smelters although around half was to be bought from
Moreover, as the SHFE is a platform for physical
the Aluminium Corporation of China Ltd Furthermore,
exchanges only (no derivatives are sold), this completely
the Minister in charge of the NDRC explained that other
insulates the Chinese aluminium market. As a
parts of the stimulus package included relaxed export
consequence, arbitrage with the worldwide benchmark,
controls, electricity subsidies, reduced electricity prices
the London Metals Exchange (‘LME’) or other markets
and raising loan ceilings. The package is reported to
is practically not possible and the exchange works in
have had an immediate effect on prices. The above
isolation from other world markets. Therefore, an equal
demonstrates that the Chinese State has a primary role
ization among these markets cannot take place.
in the setting of prices of primary aluminium and that it
Aluminium price quotation at the LME was on a
interferes in the market.
monthly average basis 14 % higher than at the SHFE
during the IP.
(23) That
the
significant
State
interference,
as
described
above,
(20) The
State
also
interferes
with
the
price
setting
mech
is clearly targeted is, inter alia, corroborated by the 12th
anisms in the SHFE as it is both a seller and a purchaser,
5 Year Development Plan for Aluminium (2011-15) in
via the State Reserve Bureau and other State Bodies, of
which the Government of China explicitly states its
primary aluminium. In addition, the State sets daily price
intention of ‘adjusting tax and export tax rebates and
limits via the rules of the SHFE which have been
other economic levers, and strictly control the total
approved by the State Regulator, the China Securities
amount of expansion and exports of primary products’.
Regulatory Commission (‘the CSRC’).
This plan continues the policy which existed in the
previous Aluminium Plan. Furthermore these plans have
been implemented over many years and, as demonstrated
above, during the IP several implementing measures were
in operation.
(21) In
addition,
the
investigation
demonstrated
that
primary
aluminium for export is subject to a 17 % VAT and is
not refundable on export whereas VAT for domestically
sold aluminium and on finished goods is refundable at
13 %. Moreover, primary aluminium for export is subject
(24) Thus, the multiple State-induced distortions in the
to a 17 % export tax. As a result, the vast majority of
Chinese primary aluminium prices affect the raw
primary aluminium production is sold on the Chinese
material prices. In addition, the producers enjoy an
market causing a price depression of the domestic
advantage from these distortions, in the sense that they
primary aluminium price and an important cost
normally make their purchases in the Chinese market
advantage for producers of aluminium radiators in the
from local suppliers using Chinese spot markets prices
PRC. The Chinese State further interfered in the market
(or SHFE) as a benchmark. During the IP, these prices
during the IP as it eliminated the 5 % import duty on
were around 15 % lower than the world market prices. In
metals during the financial crisis.
theory, Chinese companies can also buy certain quantities
at LME prices when prices in the Chinese market are
higher as a result of State intervention – whilst the
opposite is impossible for non-Chinese operators.
(22) A further distortion by the Chinese State is in the form
of interventions in the market by the State Reserves
Bureau (‘SRB’) which is part of the National Development
Reform Commission (‘NDRC’). At the end of 2008 and
the beginning of 2009 the SRB started buying up stocks
(25) An
examination
of
the
questionnaire
responses
of
both
of primary aluminium from smelters. This was a stimulus
Sira (Tianjin) Aluminium Products Co. Ltd and Sira
package aimed at limiting the effects of the global
Group (Tianjin) Heating Radiators Co. Ltd showed that
financial and economic crisis which cut demand. Those
they purchased primary aluminium products at prices
State-backed purchases absorbed most of the stocks in
linked to the SHFE price in the IP and that their
the domestic market in March and April 2009, driving
purchase prices had followed the SHFE index over a
up prices during the first half of 2009. The SRB sold
longer period.
primary aluminium back onto the market such as at the
start of November 2010 when the SRB sold 96 000
tonnes by auction as reported by Bloomberg ( 1 ). The
Xinhua News Agency reported the stockpiling measures
in December 2008, explaining that it was planned to
(26) In addition, the investigation showed that one of the two
accumulate 300 000 tonnes of aluminium at prices
companies concerned benefited from the ‘two free three
which were 10 % higher than the market price in a
half’ Business Income Tax rebate. This rebate system of
measure designed to prop up prices ( 2 ). The SRB stock
the Chinese State means that once a company starts to
realise a profit it pays no Business Income Tax for two
years and then only pays half for the next three years.
( 1 ) www.bloomberg.com
( 2 ) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-12/26/content_10564812.
Such distortions are recorded as negative costs in the
htm
profit and loss account thereby increasing profitability.

---

L 310/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
9.11.2012
(27) Under
such
circumstances,
neither
of
the
companies
has
(36) On
28
July
2011,
the
Dispute
Settlement
Body
of
the
been in a position to prove that their business decisions
WTO (‘DSB’) adopted an Appellate Body report and a
regarding acquisition of raw materials are not subject to
Panel report as modified by the Appellate Body report
significant State interference and that costs of major
on the case ‘European Communities – Definitive Anti-
inputs substantially reflect market values. Therefore,
Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners
they could not demonstrate that they fulfil criterion 1.
from China’ ( 1 ) (‘reports’).
(28) In
view
of
the
above
findings
on
criterion
1,
it
was
considered, after consultation of the Advisory
(37) In
the
reports,
it
was
found,
inter
alia,
that
Article
9(5)
of
Committee, that MET should be rejected for the Sira
the basic Regulation was inconsistent with Articles 6.10,
Group.
9.2 and 18.4 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and
Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. Article 9(5) of the
basic Regulation provides that individual exporting
producers in non-market economy countries which do
(29) In view of the above, the other MET criteria set out in
not receive market economy treatment pursuant to
Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation were not further
Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation will be subject to
analysed.
a countrywide duty rate unless such exporters can
demonstrate that they meet the conditions for individual
treatment laid out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation
(‘the DSB finding on Article 9(5) of the basic Regu
(30) The
Commission
officially
disclosed
the
results
of
the
lation’).
MET findings to the group of related companies
concerned in the PRC and to the complainant. They
were also given an opportunity to make their views
known in writing and to request a hearing if there
(38) Any
exporting
producer
in
the
PRC
which
considers
that
were particular reasons to be heard.
this Regulation should be reviewed in the light of the
legal interpretations regarding Article 9(5) contained in
the reports is invited to request a review on the basis of
Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 of
(31) Following the MET disclosure, the Sira Group
commented on the proposed MET findings. However,
23 July 2001 on the measures that may be taken by the
since the Sira Group labelled its comments as limited
Community following a report adopted by the WTO
by nature, the Commission dealt with the issues raised
Dispute Settlement Body concerning anti-dumping and
on a bilateral basis by means of a specific disclosure
anti-subsidy matters ( 2 ) (‘the WTO enabling Regulation’).
document. The comments did not lead to changes in
the findings concerning criterion 1.
(39) The
relevant
Union
institution
may
repeal,
amend
or
maintain the measures reviewed in order to reflect the
(32) Further to the above and in the absence of any
review findings. Parties requesting a review should be
comments, recitals (30) to (31) of the provisional Regu
aware that if the findings relating to them require an
lation are hereby confirmed.
amendment of the measures, such amendment may
result in a decrease or an increase in the level of the
measures.
3.1.3. IT
(33) Pursuant
to
Article
2(7)(a)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
a
country-wide duty, if any, is established for countries
(40) Further to the above, no comments were received
falling under that Article, except in those cases where
concerning the granting of IT and recitals (32) to (34)
companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all
of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.
Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria were
set out in recital (32) of the provisional Regulation.
3.2. Analogue country
(41) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
regarding
analogue
(34) Both
related exporting producers
of the Sira Group
country, recitals (35) to (41) of the provisional Regu
claimed IT in case MET would not be granted. These
lation are hereby confirmed.
claims were examined. The investigation showed that
they fulfilled all the conditions of Article 9(5) of the
basic Regulation.
( 1 ) WTO, report of the Appellate Body, AB-2011-2, WT/DS397/AB/R,
15 July 2011. WTO, report of the Panel, WT/DS397/R,
29 September 2010. The reports can be downloaded from the
WTO’s website (http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_
e/ds397_e.htm).
(35) The
Sira
Group
was
therefore
granted
IT.
( 2 ) OJ L 201, 26.7.2001, p. 10.

---

EN
9.11.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
310/5
3.3. Normal value
(49) The
first
claim
involved
the
type
of
aluminium
alloy
used
in production. In this respect, it was claimed that the
(42) The
same
methodology
was
used
for
establishing
normal
Chinese standard of this alloy was not the same as the
value for the Sira Group as the one described in recitals
alloy of the same name used in the Union. Whilst it is
(42) to (46) of the provisional Regulation. In the absence
clear that these alloys are not identical, no evidence was
of any comments regarding normal value, recitals (42) to
submitted to prove that any difference in cost existed.
(46) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
(50) The
second
claim
involved
the
use
of
an
alleged
cheaper
3.4. Export price
version of finishing powder. Again, no evidence was
submitted to prove this claim and it must be stated
(43) The Sira Group export price was calculated in line with
that this finishing powder constituted such a low
Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation because exports were
percentage of the full cost of production that it would
made at transfer prices which were deemed unreliable.
have only a marginal impact.
Export prices were therefore calculated on the basis of
the resale prices to the first independent customers on
the Union market, with appropriate deductions for costs
(51) The
third claim was that no internal anti-corrosion
and profit being made to adjust the export price to an ex
coating was applied by the company in contrast to the
works level. Adjustments were made to the resale price
product produced in the EU. As in the two cases above,
to the first independent buyer in the Union for all costs
no evidence was submitted to prove this claim.
including duties and taxes, incurred between importation
and resale, as well as a reasonable margin for SG&A and
profits. With respect to the profit margin, the profit
(52) In view of the above, the claim for differences in physical
realised by the cooperating unrelated importer of the
characteristics was rejected.
product concerned was used since the actual profit of
the related importer was not considered reliable
(53) In
the
absence
of
any
further
comments,
recitals
(48)
to
because of the relationship between the exporting
(50) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
producer and the related importer.
3.6. Dumping margins
(44) In respect of the sampled exporters, in the absence of
any comments regarding export price, recital (47) of the
(54) In
respect
of
the
Sira
Group,
the
dumping
margin
was
provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
calculated on the basis of the methodology mentioned in
recital (51) of the provisional Regulation and was set at
23,0 %.
3.5. Comparison
(55) In
the
absence
of
any
further
comments,
recitals
(51)
to
(45) Certain comments were made concerning the
comparison between the normal value and the export
(54) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
price.
4. INJURY
(46) Metal
Group
Ltd
contested
the
comparison
between
the
4.1. Total Union production
normal value and the export price on the grounds that
the comparison made was not fair because of the
(56) In
the
absence
of
comments
concerning
the
total
Union
matching methodology used and the company claimed
production, recitals (55) to (57) of the provisional Regu
differences in physical characteristics.
lation are hereby confirmed.
4.2. Union consumption
(47) Regarding
the
comparison
made,
Metal
Group
suggested
an alternative method based simply on weight. This
(57) In the absence of comments concerning the Union
methodology was rejected because it ignores other
consumption, recitals (58) to (61) of the provisional
important fields included in the product type comparison
Regulation are hereby confirmed.
system, e.g. power, which therefore ensures better
comparability.
4.3. Imports from the country concerned
4.3.1. Prices of imports and price undercutting
(48) The
claim
for
physical
differences
made
by
Metal
Group
Ltd was threefold and submitted after the deadline for
(58) After
disclosure
of
the
provisional
findings,
one
party
submitting comments had passed. None of the three
claimed that the price undercutting margin of 6,1 %
claims in this respect had been mentioned in the ques
found during the IP was low and could not have
tionnaire response (which specifically asked for such
caused material injury to the Union industry.
claims to be made). Furthermore, these claims were not
raised during the verification visit which would have
given the investigation team the opportunity to verify
(59) The
undercutting
practiced
by
Chinese
exporters
should,
their validity and magnitude.
however, be seen in the light of the pressure it has

---

L 310/6
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
9.11.2012
exercised on the Union market and the impact it had on
4.4.1. Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation
the Union industry price level. The investigation showed
that price pressure due to low-priced dumped imports
(66) In
the
absence
of comments concerning production,
did not allow the Union industry to set prices at a
production capacity and capacity utilisation, recitals
level allowing it to cover for the costs and to achieve a
(72) to (74) of the provisional Regulation are hereby
reasonable margin of profit, in particular during the IP.
confirmed.
4.4.2. Sales volume and market share
(60) As
mentioned
in
recital
(65)
of
the
provisional
Regu
lation, the investigation confirmed that the import
(67) In the absence of comments concerning the development
prices from the PRC were dumped and were always
of sales volume and market share of the Union industry,
below the sale prices of the Union industry during the
recital (75) of the provisional Regulation is hereby
period considered. The constant undercutting practised
confirmed.
by the Chinese exporters allowed their sales volume
and market share to expand in particular during the IP.
Moreover, it was found that the price difference on
4.4.3. Growth
certain types of radiators was considerably higher than
the average undercutting found. Hence, the negative
(68) In
the
absence
of
comments
concerning
growth,
recital
impact of the undercutting found on the Union market
(76) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
and the Union industry cannot be understimated. The
claim was thus rejected.
4.4.4. Employment
(69) In the absence of comments concerning employment,
(61) The
same
party
reiterated
that
the
Chinese
radiators
were
recitals (77) and (78) of the provisional Regulation are
of inferior quality compared to the ones produced in the
hereby confirmed.
Union and that they therefore could not be the cause of
any injury to the Union industry.
4.4.5. Average unit prices in the Union and cost of production
(70) In the absence of comments concerning average unit
(62) This
claim
was,
however,
not
substantiated
and
the
inves
prices in the Union and cost of production, recitals
tigation did not reveal facts which could support this
(79) and (80) of the provisional Regulation are hereby
claim. As stated in recital (23) of the provisional Regu
confirmed.
lation, the investigation showed that the aluminium
radiators produced in and exported from the PRC and
the aluminium radiators produced and sold in the Union
4.4.6. Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on
by the Union producers have the same basic physical and
investments and ability to raise capital
technical characteristics as well as the same basic uses.

Moreover, they are also completely interchangeble and
(71) In
the
absence
of
comments
concerning
profitability,
look identical in particular to the public. They are
cash flow, investments, return on investments and
therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of
ability to raise capital, recitals (81) to (83) of the
the Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
(63) It is noteworthy that the price undercutting and the
4.4.7. Stocks
injury elimination level are determined on the basis of
a detailed comparison of Chinese and Union products
(72) In the absence of comments concerning stocks, recital
(84) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
types. Hence, any alleged difference between the
various types of radiators is taken into account in the
detailed price comparison. Based on the above, the claim
was rejected.
4.4.8. Magnitude of the actual dumping margin
(73) In the absence of any comments concerning the
magnitude of the actual dumping margin, recital (85)
(64) In the absence of any other comments concerning
of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
imports from the country concerned, recitals (62) to
(67) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
4.4.9. Conclusion on injury
(74) The
investigation
confirmed
that
most
of
the
injury
indi
4.4. Economic situation of the Union industry
cators showed a declining trend during the period
considered. Therefore, the conclusion reached in recitals
(65) In the absence of other comments concerning the
(86) to (89) of the provisional Regulation that the Union
preliminary remarks, recitals (68) to (71) of the
industry suffered material injury within the meaning of
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation is confirmed.

---

EN
9.11.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
310/7
5. CAUSATION
could not increase its prices accordingly in view of the
continued price pressure. Hence, this claim was rejected.
5.1. Introduction
(75) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
to
recital
(90)
of
the
(83) In
the
absence
of
any
other
comments
concerning
the
provisional Regulation, that recital is hereby confirmed.
development of the Union industry cost of production,
recitals (101) to (103) of the provisional Regulation are
5.2. Effect of the dumped imports
hereby confirmed.

(76) In the absence of any comments concerning the effect of
the dumped imports, recitals (91) to (95) of the
5.3.4. Export performance of the sampled Union industry
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
(84) One party claimed that the level and the decrease in the
Union industry export sales had a major influence on its
5.3. Effect of other factors
overall economic performance during the period
considered.
5.3.1. Imports from third countries
(77) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
concerning
imports
(85) The
investigation
showed,
however,
that
although
the
from third countries, recital (96) of the provisional Regu
Union industry export sales decreased during the period
lation is hereby confirmed.
considered, they remained an important part, accounting
for 51 % of the Union industry total sales in the EU in
the IP and for 27 % of the Union industry total
5.3.2. Economic crisis
production in the IP. Thus, as stated in recital (106) of
the provisional Regulation, export sales gave the Union
(78) One party claimed that the cause of the injury, if any,
industry the possibility to achieve economies of scale and
suffered by the Union industry was the economic crisis
could therefore not be considered to have caused the
which prevailed in the construction and housing sector,
material injury suffered by the Union industry during
and particularly in certain Member States such as Spain
the period considered. The trend and the level of the
and Italy, considered by this party as the main sales
Union industry export sales are not such as to break
markets for the Union industry.
the causal link between the injury and the low-priced
dumped imports from the PRC. Therefore, the claim
(79) The
investigation, however, revealed that the Union
was rejected.
industry also sold large volumes of radiators in other
Member States than Spain and Italy. Furthermore, the
market of the product concerned and the like product
(86) The
same
party
has
requested
disclosure
of
the
Union
goes beyond the construction and housing markets of
industry exports’ values and thus prices, since only
Spain and Italy. Nevertheless, even if it cannot be
exports’ volumes were published in the provisional Regu
excluded that the economic crisis had an impact on
lation. However, this data cannot be disclosed since they
the Union market, the presence of increasing volumes
are considered confidential.
of low-priced Chinese dumped imports intensified any
negative effects the economic downturn may have had
during the period considered and prevented the Union
(87) In the absence of other comments concerning the export
industry from benefitting from the general economic
performance of the sampled Union industry, recitals
recovery during the IP. The claim was therefore rejected.
(104) to (106) of the provisional Regulation are hereby

confirmed.
(80) In the absence of other comments concerning the
economic crisis, recitals (97) to (100) of the provisional
5.4. Conclusion on causation
Regulation are hereby confirmed.
(88) One party claimed that the decision of the Union
industry to increase production capacity in 2008
5.3.3. Development of the Union industry cost of production
combined with the difficult economic situation which
also prevailed in the following years are the main
(81) It was claimed that the increase in the price of
causes of the decrease of the Union industry’s capacity
aluminium which constitutes a large share of the cost
utilisation and its negative profitability. It was thus
to produce the like product was the cause of the injury
claimed that injury was caused by various domestic
suffered by the Union industry.
factors, such as the economic crisis and the wrong
investment decisions made by the Union industry.
(82) However, it is rather considered that in a market
governed by fair competition, prices can be set at a
(89) However,
an injury analysis is assessed taking into
level as to cover costs and to achieve a reasonable
account all the injury factors together, of which
profit margin. As confirmed in recital (60) above, the
capacity utilisation and profitability are only two. The
average import prices from the PRC were continuously
investigation of injury showed in particular that the
undercutting the Union industry prices during the period
Union industry sales volume decreased by 16 % over
considered. When costs increased, the Union industry
the period considered, while imports from the PRC

---

L 310/8
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
9.11.2012
increased by 77 % over the period considered and the
scenario, it seems that the resulted price increase could
market share increased from 13 % to 24 % over the
be easily absorbed in the chain of downstream sales.
period considered. Even during the IP, when
consumption increased compared to 2009, the Union
industry market share kept shrinking. Notwithstanding
the deterioration of other injury factors, another sign of
(95) In the absence of comments concerning the Union
the difficult economic situation suffered by the Union
interest, recitals (111) to (118) of the provisional Regu
industry is illustrated by the Union industry stock
lation are hereby confirmed.
levels which increased significantly over the period
considered. Therefore, the increased production capacity
of the Union industry in 2008 should be analysed
together with all these other elements, in order to have
a complete picture.
7. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
7.1. Injury elimination level
(96) It
was
claimed
that
the
profit
margin
used
to
calculate
(90) Although
the
economic
crisis
had
a
certain
negative
the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of
impact on the Union industry’s situation, it cannot be
the injurious dumping was too high. It was argued that
ignored that the low-priced Chinese dumped imports
the margin of 7,4 %, achieved by the sampled Union
increased significantly over the period considered and
producers in the year 2008, was exceptional and unreal
thus intensified any negative effects the economic
istic. The economic crisis which hit the market in the
downturn may have had during the period considered
following years made it impossible to reach such a level
and prevented the Union industry from benefitting
of profit.
from the general economic recovery during the IP.
(97) It should be noted that this profit margin was verified
(91) The
investigation
showed
that
there
was
a
9
%
increase
in
during the investigation as the profit margin reached by
consumption between 2009 and the IP, while the Union
the sampled companies under normal market conditions,
industry market share kept decreasing and even with a
namely in the absence of injurious dumping. It cannot be
better general economic situation, the Union industry
concluded that the economic crisis had no impact on the
was unable to recover, because it was always under
Union industry’s situation, but the volume of low-priced
pressure of the low-priced dumped imports from the
dumped imports from the PRC undercutting the prices of
PRC. Based on the above, the claim was thus rejected.
the Union industry kept increasing over the whole period
considered to the detriment of the Union industry prices
and market share. It is therefore clear that the dumped
imports from the PRC have intensified any effect of the
(92) In the absence of other comments concerning the
economic downturn on the Union industry. Therefore,
conclusion on causation, recitals (107) to (110) of the
this claim was rejected.
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
(98) It
was
also
claimed
that
the
post-importation
cost
used
6. UNION INTEREST
to calculate undercutting and injury margins (0,2 %,
including all the costs necessary to release the goods
(93) There
was
no
cooperation
from
users
in
this
investi
for free circulation into the EU, such as the handling
gation and despite the efforts after publication of
cost and customs clearance fee, but excluding the
provisional findings no, users came forward.
import duty) was underestimated. According to this
party, the post-importation cost should include the
handling cost, customs clearance fee and in-land freight
estimated to 3,5 %. In order to calculate undercutting and
(94) Based
on
information
available,
it
was
found
that
the
underselling, the price at the EU border is compared with
main purchasers of aluminium radiators are large
the ex-works price of Union industry producers. The
building companies, distributors and wholesalers, which
price at EU border must include all the costs necessary
resale them to specialised chains or retailer shops for
to release the goods for free circulation into the EU, (i.e.
sales to smaller construction companies or end users.
customs clearance fee and handling costs), but not any
An assessment of the possible impact the imposition of
in-land freight, as claimed by the party. Therefore, this
definitive duties may have on the parties concerned
claim was rejected.
revealed that even with a potential price increase per
element of aluminium radiator imported of 61 %,
which is the highest anti-dumping duty proposed, this
price increase seems to be quite low, since the product
(99) In the absence of other comments concerning the injury
concerned is usually part of large projects, where its price
elimination level, the methodology described in recitals
is only a small portion of the total business costs.
(119) to (123) of the provisional Regulation is hereby
Therefore, even taking into account the worst case
confirmed.

---

EN
9.11.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
310/9
7.2. Form and level of the duties
commercial invoice, which shall conform to the
requirements set out in the Annex II to this Regulation.
(100) In the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in
Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall be
accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation,
made subject to the residual anti-dumping duty
definitive anti-dumping measures should be imposed on
applicable to all other exporters.
imports of the product concerned at the level of the
lower of the dumping and the injury margins, in
accordance with the lesser duty rule. Accordingly, all
(104) Should the exports by one of the companies benefiting
duty rates should be set at the level of the injury
from lower individual duty rates increase significantly in
margins found.
volume after the imposition of the measures concerned,
such an increase in volume could be considered as
constituting in itself a change in the pattern of trade
(101) The proposed definitive anti-dumping duties are the
due to the imposition of measures within the meaning
following:
of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. In such circum
stances and provided the conditions are met an anti-
circumvention investigation may be initiated. This inves
tigation may, inter alia, examine the need for the removal
Country Company
Dumping
Injury
Definitive
margin
margin
duty
of individual duty rates and the consequent imposition of
a country-wide duty.
PRC Zhejiang
Flyhigh 23,0 % 12,6
% 12,6
%
Metal Products
Co., Ltd.
(105) Any claim requesting the application of an individual
anti-dumping duty rate (e.g. following a change in the
Metal Group Co.,
70,8 % 56,2
% 56,2
%
name of the entity or following the setting up of new
Ltd.
production or sales entities) should be addressed to the
Commission ( 1 ) forthwith with all relevant information,
Sira Group (Sira
23,0 % 14,9
% 14,9
%
in particular any modification in the company’s activities
(Tianjin)
Aluminium
linked to production, domestic and export sales
Products Co. Ltd.
associated with, for instance, that name change or that
and Sira Group
change in the production and sales entities. If appro
(Tianjin) Heating
priate, this Regulation will then be amended accordingly
Radiators Co. Ltd.)
by updating the list of companies benefiting from indi
vidual anti-dumping duty rates.
Other cooperating
32,5 % 21,2
% 21,2
%
companies
(106) In order to ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-
All other
76,6 % 61,4
% 61,4
%
dumping duty, the country-wide duty level should not
companies
only apply to the non-cooperating exporting producers
(country-wide
but also to those producers which did not have any
dumping margin)
exports to the Union during the IP.
(107) In order to ensure equal treatment between any new
(102) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates
exporters and the cooperating companies not included
specified in this Regulation were established on the
in the sample, mentioned in Annex I to this Regulation,
basis of the findings of the present investigation.
provision should be made for the weighted average duty
Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that
imposed on the latter companies to be applied to any
investigation in respect to these companies. These duty
new exporters which would otherwise be entitled to a
rates (as opposed to the country-wide duty applicable to
review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation
‘all other companies’) are thus exclusively applicable to
as that Article does not apply where sampling has been
imports of the products originating in the PRC and
used.
produced by the companies and thus by the specific
legal entities mentioned. Imports of the product
concerned manufactured by any other company not
7.3. Definitive collection of provisional anti-
specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regu
dumping duties
lation with its name and address, including entities
related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit
(108) In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found
from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate
and given the level of the injury caused to the Union
applicable to ‘all other companies’.
industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts
secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty,
imposed by the provisional Regulation, be definitively
(103) In order to minimise the risks of circumvention due to
collected to the extent of the amount of the definitive
the high difference in the duty rates, it is considered that
duties imposed,
special measures are needed in this case to ensure the
proper application of the anti-dumping duties. These
( 1 ) European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate H,
special measures include the presentation to the
Office: NERV-105, 08/020, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel BELGIQUE/
Customs authorities of the Member States of a valid
BELGI.

---

L 310/10
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
9.11.2012
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
4. Unless
otherwise
specified,
the
provisions
in
force
concerning customs duties shall apply.
Article 1
1. A
definitive
anti-dumping
duty
is
hereby
imposed
on
Article 2
imports of aluminium radiators and elements or sections of
which such radiator is composed, whether or not such
The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping
elements are assembled in blocks, excluding radiators and
duty pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 402/2012 on imports of
elements and sections thereof of the electrical type, currently
aluminium radiators originating in the People’s Republic of
falling within CN codes ex 7615 10 10, ex 7615 10 90,
China, shall be definitively collected. The amounts secured in
ex 7616 99 10
and
ex 7616 99 90
(TARIC
codes
excess of the definitive rates of the anti-dumping duty shall be
7615 10 10 10,
7615 10 90 10,
7616 99 10 91,
released.
7616 99 90 01 and 7616 99 90 91) and originating in the
People’s Republic of China.
Article 3
2. The
rate
of
the
definitive
anti-dumping
duty
applicable
to
Where any new exporting producer in the People’s Republic of
the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product
China provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that:
described in paragraph 1 and produced by the companies below
shall be as follows:
— it did not export to the Union the product described in
Article 1(1) during the investigation period (1 July 2010
Company Definitive
duty TARIC additional
to 30 June 2011),
code
Zhejiang Flyhigh Metal Products Co.,
12,6 % B272
— it is not related to any of the exporters or producers in the
Ltd.
People’s Republic of China which are subject to the
measures imposed by this Regulation,
Metal Group Co. Ltd. 56,2
% B273
Sira (Tianjin) Aluminium Products
14,9 % B279
— it has actually exported to the Union the product concerned
Co. Ltd.
after the investigation period on which the measures are
based, or it has entered into an irrevocable contractual
Sira Group (Tianjin) Heating 14,9 % B280
obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union,
Radiators Co. Ltd.
Companies listed in Annex I 21,2
%
the Council, acting by simple majority on a proposal submitted
by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,
All other companies 61,4
% B999
may amend Article 1(2) by adding the new exporting producer
to the cooperating companies not included in the sample and
3. The
application
of
the
individual
duty
rates
specified
for thus subject to the weighted average duty rate of 21,2 %.
the companies mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be conditional
upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member
Article 4
States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the
requirements set out in Annex II. If no such invoice is pres
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that
ented, the duty applicable to all other companies shall apply.
of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 29 October 2012.
For the Council
The President
E. FLOURENTZOU

---

EN
9.11.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
310/11
ANNEX I
PRC COOPERATING EXPORTING PRODUCERS NOT SAMPLED
Name TARIC
additional
code
Jinyun Shengda Industry Co., Ltd. B274
Ningbo Ephriam Radiator Equipment Co., Ltd. B275
Ningbo Everfamily Radiator Co., Ltd. B276
Ningbo Ningshing Kinhil Industrial Co., Ltd. B277
Ningbo Ninhshing Kinhil International Co., Ltd. B278
Yongkang Jinbiao Machine Electric Co., Ltd. B281
Yongkang Sanghe Radiator Co., Ltd. B282
Zhejiang Aishuibao Piping Systems Co., Ltd. B283
Zhejiang Botai Tools Co., Ltd. B284
Zhejiang East Industry Co., Ltd. B285
Zhejiang Guangying Machinery Co., Ltd. B286
Zhejiang Kangfa Industry & Trading Co., Ltd. B287
Zhejiang Liwang Industrial and Trading Co., Ltd. B288
Zhejiang Ningshuai Industry Co., Ltd. B289
Zhejiang Rongrong Industrial Co., Ltd. B290
Zhejiang Yuanda Machinery & Electrical Manufacturing Co., Ltd. B291

---

L 310/12
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
9.11.2012
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 aluminium radiators and elements or sections of which such radiator is
composed, 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’.

---

Document Outline

• �

---