HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
7.9.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
240/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 861/2013
of 2 September 2013
imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed
on imports of certain stainless steel wires originating in India
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
on behalf of Union producers representing more than
50 % of total Union production of certain stainless
steel wires.
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union,
(3) In the parallel anti-dumping investigation, the
Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty
on imports of certain stainless steel wires originating in
India by Regulation (EU) No 418/2013 ( 3 ).
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of
11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from
countries not members of the European Community ( 1 ) (‘the
basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 15 thereof,
1.2. Parties concerned by the investigation
(4) At
the
provisional
stage
of
the
investigation
sampling
was applied for the Indian exporting producers, the
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European
Union producers and unrelated importers. However, as
Commission (‘the Commission’) after having consulted the
two of the importers chosen for the sample did not
Advisory Committee,
return questionnaire replies, sampling for importers
could no longer be pursued. All available information
pertaining to cooperating importers was used to reach
definitive findings, in particular as far the Union interest
is concerned.
Whereas:
(5) Seven
Indian
exporting
producers
outside
the
sample
1. PROCEDURE
requested individual examination. Two of them replied
to the questionnaires. Five did not reply to the question
1.1. Provisional measures
naire. Out of the two which replied to the questionnaire,
one withdrew its individual examination request. As a
(1) The
Commission
imposed
a
provisional
countervailing
result, the Commission has examined the request of
duty on imports of certain stainless steel wires orig
one Indian exporting producer outside the sample:
inating in India by Regulation (EU) No 419/2013 ( 2 )
(‘the provisional Regulation’).
— KEI Industries Limited, New Delhi (KEI).
(2) The
investigation
was
initiated
following
a
complaint
lodged on 28 June 2012 by the European Confederation
of Iron and Steel Industries (Eurofer) (‘the complainant’)
(6)
Apart from the above, recitals 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and
14 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
( 1 ) OJ L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93.
( 2 ) Commission Regulation (EU) No 419/2013 of 3 May 2013
( 3 ) Commission Regulation (EU) No 418/2013 of 3 May 2013
imposing a provisional countervailing duty on imports of certain
imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain
stainless steel wires originating in India
stainless steel wires originating in India
(OJ L 126, 8.5.2013, p. 19).
(OJ L 126, 8.5.2013, p. 1).

---

L 240/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
7.9.2013
1.3. Investigation period and the period considered
(11) Some
users
expressed
concerns
about
the
apparent
lack
of distinction between the various types of the product
(7) As
set
out
in
recital
20
of
the
provisional
Regulation,
the
concerned and the like product because a wide product
investigation of subsidisation and injury covered the
mix exists among all the product types. There was a
period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012 (‘investi
particular concern as to how a fair comparison among
gation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of the trends
all types could be ensured in the investigation. As is the
relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period
case in most investigations, the definition of the product
from 1 January 2009 to 31 March 2012 (‘period
concerned covers a wide variety of product types which
considered’).
share the same or similar basic physical technical and
chemical characteristics. The fact that these characteristics
can vary from product type to product type may indeed
lead, in an investigation, to covering a wide range of
1.4. Subsequent procedure
types. This is the case in the current investigation. The
Commission took account of the differences among the
(8) Following the disclosure of the essential facts and
product types and ensured a fair comparison. A unique
considerations on the basis of which it was decided to
product control number (PCN) was allocated to each
impose provisional countervailing measures (‘provisional
product type, produced and sold by the Indian
disclosure’), several interested parties, namely two
exporting producers and to each one produced and
exporting producers, the complainant, and 11 users,
sold by the Union industry. The number depended on
submitted comments. The parties who so requested
the main characteristics of the product, in this case, the
were granted a hearing. The Commission continued to
steel grade, the tensile strength, the coating, the surface,
seek information it deemed necessary for the definitive
diameter, and the shape. Therefore, the types of wires
findings. All comments received were considered and,
exported to the Union were compared on a PCN basis
where appropriate, taken into account.
with the products produced and sold by the Union
industry that have the same or similar characteristics.
All these types fell within the definition of the product
concerned and the like product in the notice of initi
ation ( 1 ) and in the provisional Regulation.
(9) The
Commission
informed
the
interested
parties
of
the
essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it
intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive
countervailing duty on imports of certain stainless steel
wires originating in India and the definitive collection of
the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty
(‘final disclosure’). The parties were also granted a
(12) One
party
reiterated
its
claim
that
the
so
called
‘highly
period within which they could comment on the final
technical’ product types are different and not inter
disclosure. All comments received were considered and
changeable with other types of the product concerned.
taken into account, where appropriate.
Hence, it argues, they should be excluded from the
product definition. According to the case-law, when
determining whether products are alike so that they
form part of the same product, it needs to be assessed
whether they share the same technical and physical char
2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
acteristics, have the same basic end-uses, and have the
same price-quality ratio. In that regard, the interchange
(10) As
stated
in
recital
21
of
the
provisional
Regulation,
the
product concerned is defined as stainless steel wires
ability of, and competition between, those products
containing by weight:
should also be assessed ( 2 ). The investigation found that
the ‘highly technical’ product types referred to by the
party have the same basic physical, chemical, and
technical characteristics as the other products subject to
the investigation. They are made from stainless steel and
(i) 2,5 % or more of nickel, other than wire containing
they are wires. They constitute a semi-finished steel
by weight 28 % or more but not more than 31 % of
product (which in the majority of cases is then subject
nickel and 20 % or more but not more than 22 % of
to further transformation in view of producing a broad
chromium,
variety of finished goods), and the production process is
similar, using similar machines, such that producers can
switch between different variants of the product,
according to demand. Therefore, although different
(ii) less than 2,5 % of nickel, other than wire containing
types of wires are not directly interchangeable and do
by weight 13 % or more but not more than 25 % of
not directly compete, producers are competing for
chromium and 3,5 % or more but not more than 6 %
contracts covering a broad range of stainless steel
of aluminium,
wires. Moreover, these product types are produced and
sold by both the Union industry and the Indian
exporting producers using a similar production method.
Therefore, the claim cannot be accepted.
currently falling within CN codes 7223 00 19 and
( 1 ) OJ C 240, 10.8.2012, p. 6.
7223 00 99, originating in India.
( 2 ) Case C-595/11 Steinel [2013] not yet reported, paragraph 44.

---

EN
7.9.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
240/3
(13) In
response
to
definitive
disclosure
one
party
claimed
3. SUBSIDISATION
that the analysis carried out by the Commission in
terms of establishing whether the so-called highly
3.1. Introduction
technical product types should be included in the inves
tigation was insufficient. This argument is rejected. The
(17) In
recital
25
of
the
provisional
Regulation,
reference
was
investigation established that the highly technical product
made to the following schemes, which allegedly involve
type fall within the product definition as stated in
the granting of countervailing subsidies:
recital 12 above. The party wrongly assumes that all
the criteria referred to in the case-law have to be met
at the same time; this is incorrect. According to the case-
(a) Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (‘DEPBS’);
law, the Commission enjoys a wide discretion when
defining the product scope ( 1 ), and has to base this
assessment on the set of criteria developed by the
(b) Duty Drawback Scheme (‘DDS’);
Court of Justice of the European Union. Often, as in
the present case, some criteria may point in one
direction and some in the other; in such a situation,
the Commission needs to carry out a global assessment,
(c) Advance Authorisation Scheme (‘AAS’);
as it has done in the present case. Therefore, this
interested party erred in assuming that product types
need to share all characteristics in order to fall the
(d) Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (‘EPCGS’);
same product definition.
(e) Export Credit Scheme (‘ECS’);
(14) Some
users
claimed
that
the
so-called
stainless
steel
wires
(f) Focus Market Scheme (‘FMS’);
‘series 200’ should be excluded from the product scope.
In particular, they alleged this type was hardly produced
by the Union industry. However, this claim is unfounded.
First, the fact that a certain product type is not produced
(g) Special Economic Zones/Export Oriented Units
by the Union industry is not a sufficient reason to
(‘SEZ/EOU’).
exclude it from the scope of the investigation, where
the production process is such that the Union
producers could start producing the product type in
(18) The
Union
industry
alleged
that
the
Commission
had
question. Second, as for highly technical wires (see
failed to take into account a number of subsidy
recital 12), it was found that these types of the
schemes, especially regional ones, and as a result
product concerned have basic physical, chemical, and
believed that the subsidies found to be received by
technical characteristics identical or similar to other
Indian producers were underestimated. The allegation is
types of the like product produced and sold by the
unfounded. The Commission investigated all of the
Union industry. Therefore, the claim cannot be accepted.
national and local subsidy schemes contained in the
complaint. However, the Commission found that during
the IP the sampled exporting producers had received
subsidies only with regard to the schemes listed in
recital 14 above.
(15) Alternatively, these users claimed that wire rod should be
included in the definition of the product concerned.
However, wire rod is the raw material used for the
(19) The
Union
industry
also
argued
that,
since
in
the
parallel
production of the product concerned but can also be
anti-dumping investigation the data submitted by the
used for the production of different products such as
sampled Indian producers were found unreliable and
fasteners and nails. Therefore, contrary to the product
Article 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 ( 2 )
under investigation, it does not constitute a finished
was applied, the corresponding Article 28 of the basic
steel product. Through the cold forming production
Regulation should have equally been applied in the
process, the wire rod amongst other products can be
current investigation. However, Article 28 of the basic
transformed into the product concerned or a like
Regulation applies only if its conditions are met, which
product. On that basis, wire rod cannot be included in
has not been the case with regard to the information
the product scope within the meaning of the basic Regu
provided by the sampled Indian producers. Therefore,
lation.
the claim cannot be accepted.
(20) The investigation has shown that the DEPBS, the DDS
and the AAS all form part of one subsidy mechanism,
(16) On the basis of the above, the definition of the product
that is a duty drawback mechanism. India has used
concerned and the like product in recitals 21 to 24 of
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
( 2 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of
( 1 ) Case T-170/94 Shanghai Bicycle [1997] ECR II-1383, paragraph 64.
the European Community (OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51).

---

L 240/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
7.9.2013
various types of this mechanism over a long time,
domestic producer, and not from a domestic importing
modifying the individual sub-mechanisms frequently.
trader. Therefore, these arguments cannot be accepted.
The investigation has shown that it is appropriate to
analyse these sub-mechanisms together, as exporters
typically have to choose between them (they are
mutually exclusive), and in the event one of the sub-
(23) One
party
argued
that
in
case
of
the
sale
of
the
DEPBS
mechanisms is discontinued, switch to another one.
licence, the actual selling price was below the licence
value and therefore the countervailing benefit was
lower than the one provisionally established. However,
the benefit under this scheme was calculated on the
basis of the amount of credit granted in the licence
(21) In
the
absence
of
other
comments,
recitals
25
to
28
of
regardless of whether the licence was used to offset
the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
customs duties on imports or whether the licence was
actually sold. Any sale of a licence at a price less than its
face value is a purely commercial decision which does
not alter the amount of benefit received under this
scheme. Therefore, this argument cannot be accepted.
3.2. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (‘DEPBS’)
(22) One
of
the
sampled
Indian
exporting
producers
argued
that the DEPBS should not be considered as a counter
(24) The
GOI
argued
that
the
DEPBS
has
been
withdrawn
vailing subsidy, since the purpose of the scheme is to
during the IP and therefore should not be countervailed.
offset customs duties on imports. It was furthermore
They furthermore argued that since the duty drawback is
alleged that for the product under investigation, there
not a successor programme of DEPB, DEPB may not be
is no domestic production of inputs, so that it is a
countervailed. Indeed the DEPBS ceased to exist on
reasonable assumption that all imports have been taxed
30 September 2011, during the IP. However, the
at 5 %, and that the cap established by the Government
subsidisation continued to exist. As an alternative to
of India (‘GOI’) ensures that there is no over-compen
the DEPBS the exporters were found to receive benefits
sation. As explained in recital 38 of the provisional Regu
under AAS and especially DDS. As described in recitals
lation, this scheme cannot be considered a permissible
42 to 44 of the provisional Regulation, AAS and DDS
duty drawback system or substitution drawback system
were adjusted to organise a smooth transition from the
within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic
DEPBS. In addition, the nature of the benefits under the
Regulation since it does not conform to the rules laid
three schemes, i.e. revenue foregone in the form of
down in point (i) of Annex I, Annex II (definition and
exemption from customs duties, is exactly the same.
rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules
Companies have thus a choice which scheme to use
for substitution drawback) of the basic Regulation. In
for the offsetting of customs duties. Therefore, despite
particular, an exporter benefiting from DEPBS is under
the fact that the DEPBS ceased to exist halfway
no obligation actually to consume the goods imported
through the IP, the subsidies granted by the GOI
free of duty in its production process and the amount of
during the IP should be countervailed because the over
credit is not calculated in relation to the actual value of
arching system of benefits continued as, for the reasons
the inputs used. Lastly, an exporter is eligible for the
set out above in recital 20, all duty drawback schemes
DEPBS benefits regardless of whether it imports any
form one subsidy mechanisms with different, often
inputs at all. In order to obtain the benefit, it is sufficient
changing sub-mechanisms. This argument can thus not
for an exporter to simply export goods without demon
be accepted.
strating that any input material was imported.
(25) In its response to the definitive disclosure, the GOI
reiterated its arguments concerning the withdrawal of
The GOI has failed to establish a system which links the
the DEPBS after definitive disclosure. However, since no
amount of duty exempted on the imported inputs with
new arguments were presented which would lead to a
their consumption in the exported products. From their
change in the conclusion with regard to the replacement
side, the companies benefitting from this scheme also did
of the subsidisation under the ceased DEPBS by the
not have a mechanism in place to demonstrate that they
adjusted DDS, this argument cannot be accepted.
did not receive any excess remission. In addition,
regarding the non-existing of over-compensation in this
specific case, the company failed to demonstrate that this
was the case, it could for example have benefitted from
compensation for other imported goods or it could have
(26) In
the
absence
of
other
comments,
recitals
29
to
47
of
benefitted from compensation for imported inputs
the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
without having consumed it for the production of the
product concerned. It also has to be noted that the
statement that there is no domestic production of
inputs is incorrect since at least one of the companies
(27) In
addition,
it was
found that the
Indian exporting
investigated produced this domestically while the other
producer KEI was using the DEPBS in the IP. The
two investigated companies were purchasing from a
subsidy rate amounted to 0,50 %.

---

EN
7.9.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
240/5
3.3. Duty Drawback Scheme (‘DDS’)
Annex II or Annex III of the basic Regulation. The GOI
did not effectively apply a verification system or a
(28) The
GOI
argued
that
the
DDS
should
not
be
considered
procedure to confirm whether and in what amounts
as a countervailing subsidy, since the purpose of the
inputs were consumed in the production of the
scheme is to offset import duties and excises taxes paid
exported product (Annex II(II)(4) of the basic Regulation
on inputs. As explained in recitals 58 to 60 of the
and, in the case of substitution drawback schemes,
provisional Regulation this scheme cannot be considered
Annex III(II)(2) of the basic Regulation). Moreover, the
a permissible duty drawback system or substitution
Standard Input Output Norms (‘SIONs’) for the product
drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii)
concerned were not sufficiently precise and they cannot
of the basic Regulation since it does not conform to the
constitute a verification system of actual consumption.
rules laid down in point (i) of Annex I, Annex II and
The design of those standard norms does not enable
Annex III of the basic Regulation. In particular, there is
the GOI to verify with sufficient precision what
no system or procedure in place to confirm which inputs
amounts of inputs were consumed in the production
are consumed in the production process of the exported
of the exported products. In addition, the GOI did not
product or whether an excess payment of import duties
carry out any further examination based on actual inputs
occurred within the meaning of point (i) of Annex I and
involved as explained in recital 73 of the provisional
Annexes II and III of the basic Regulation. Furthermore,
Regulation, although this would normally need to be
an exporter is eligible for the DDS benefits regardless of
carried out in the absence of an effectively applied verifi
whether it imports any input materials at all. To obtain
cation system (Annex II(II)(5) and Annex III(II)(3) to the
the benefit, it is sufficient for an exporter simply to
basic Regulation). The sub-scheme is therefore counter
export goods without demonstrating that any input
vailing, and the argument is rejected.
material was imported. The above was confirmed by
the findings made at the visited companies and by the
corresponding legislation, namely the GOI’s circular
No 24/2001 as explained in recital 60 of the provisional
(33) In
the
absence
of
other
comments,
recitals
65
to
80
of
Regulation. In addition, in its submission, the GOI
the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
admitted itself in paragraph 32 thereof that DDS may
result in excess remission. Therefore, the GOI’s argument
cannot be accepted.
(34) The
Indian
exporting
producer,
KEI
Industries,
was
found
not to use AAS in the IP.
(29) The
GOI
further
argued
that,
although
the
verification
system for the consumption of inputs was not
complete, in particular due to the high number of bene
3.5. Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme
ficiaries and the administrative burden involved in
(‘EPCGS’)
controlling all of them, the verification mechanism in
place based on sampling should be accepted. This
(35) Upon the definitive disclosure, one of the Indian
argument however cannot be accepted as it is not
exporting producers provided comments on a calculation
foreseen in Article 3(1)(a)(ii), point (i) of Annex I,
error. This comment was partially warranted and was
Annex II or Annex III of the basic Regulation.
acknowledged in the calculation of the subsidy amount.
Since the overall subsidy margin for this company was
below the de minimis level even before this correction, the
adjustment neither changes the final level of the counter
vailing duty of this company nor does it affect the
(30) In
the
absence
of
other
comments,
recitals
48
to
64
of
the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
average subsidy margin calculated for the cooperating

non-sampled companies or the country-wide subsidy
margin.
(31) In
addition,
it
was
found that the
Indian exporting
producer, KEI Industries, was using the DDS in the IP.
(36) Apart from the above, recitals 81 to 91 of the
The subsidy rate amounted to 0,29 %.
provisional Regulation are confirmed.
3.4. Advance Authorisation Scheme (‘AAS’)
(37) The
Indian
exporting
producer,
KEI
Industries,
was
found
not to benefit from the EPCGS in the IP with regard to
(32) One
of
the
sampled
Indian
exporting
producers
argued
the product concerned.
that the AAS should be considered as a duty drawback
system, because the imported materials are used to
produce exported goods. As explained in recital 76 of
the provisional Regulation the sub-scheme used in the
3.6. Export Credit Scheme (‘ECS’)
present case is not a permissible duty drawback system
or substitution drawback system within the meaning of
(38) The
GOI
argued
that
in
recital
92
of
the
provisional
Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. It does not
Regulation the Commission incorrectly cited the legal
conform to the rules laid down in point (i) of Annex I,
basis of the ECS. The GOI indicated that the Master

---

L 240/6
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
7.9.2013
Circular DBOD No DIR(Exp.) BC 01/04.02.02/2007-
(41) In
light
of
the
above,
the
duty
rates
will
be
adjusted
2008 (‘MC 07-08’) and Master Circular DBOD No
where applicable.
DIR(Exp.) BC 09/04.02.02/2008-09 (‘MC 08-09’) were
updated and these were Master Circular DBOD No
DIR(Exp.) BC 06/04.02.002/2010-11 (‘MC 10-11’) and
Master Circular DBOD No DIR(Exp.) BC
3.7. Focus Market Scheme (‘FMS’)
04/04.02.002/2011-2012 (‘MC 11-12) which constituted
the legal basis for the ECS in the IP. Indeed the obser
(42) Upon the definitive disclosure, the GOI submitted
vation of the GOI is correct in this regard.
comments on FMS. The GOI argued that the scheme is
geographically related to countries not part of the Union
and can thus not be countervailed by the Union. Never
theless, the GOI was not able to dispute either the
practical implementations of the scheme or that the
(39) The
GOI
further
argued
that,
had
the
proper
updated
FMS benefit can be used for the product concerned,
legal basis been taken into account, the Commission
namely the fact that duty credits under FMS are freely
would have to take a note of the fact that the
transferable and that they can be used for payment of
maximum ceiling interest rate applicable to export
custom duties on subsequent imports of any inputs or
credits, previously made mandatory by the Reserve
goods including capital goods. Therefore, this claim had
Bank of India (‘RBI’) for the commercial banks, ceased
to be rejected as the investigation has shown that the
to exist before the IP with regard to export credits in
product concerned can and does benefit from this
rupees. Therefore, this scheme as far as credits in rupees
scheme when exported to the Union.
are concerned can no longer be considered a subsidy.
The investigation demonstrated that two sampled
companies benefited in practice from export credits
from privately owned banks with rates below the
(43) In
the
absence
of
any
other
comments,
recitals
101
to
reference rate set by the Bank of India. The investigation
111 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
has not revealed a commercial rational as to why these
privately owned banks provide credits at discounted and
apparently loss-making rates. These lending practices of
the banks could suggest that there is still government
(44) The
Indian
exporting
producer,
KEI
Industries,
was
found
involvement. However, the investigation did not
not to use FMS in the IP.
produce evidence of the level required under WTO
rules to show continuing entrustment or direction of
the commercial banks. Therefore, the Commission has
decided not to count the benefit of the discounted
rates as a subsidy under this sub-scheme, in the
3.8. Export Oriented Units Scheme (‘EOUS’)
absence of sufficient evidence of direction and/or a
financial contribution by the GOI.
(45) Upon the definitive disclosure, the sole exporting

producer investigated using EOUS submitted comments
on this scheme. The company claimed that the
Commission should use a different method to calculate
the benefit received under the EOUS. The company
argued that certain benefits under EOUS should be
(40) Last, the GOI argued that the latest update of
treated as a permissible duty drawback scheme within
Master Circular — DBOD No DIR(Exp.) BC.
the meaning of Annexes II and III of the basic Regulation
06/04.02.002/2012-13 (‘MC 12-13’), which had
and that they therefore should not be countervailing.
entered into force two months after the end of the IP,
had erased the maximum ceilings on interest rates of the
export credits also with regard to credits in the foreign
currency. Invoking Article 15(1) of the basic anti-subsidy
Regulation the GOI argues that in such a case also this
(46) It
was
however
found
that
regardless
of
which
method
of
element of the export credit scheme should not be
calculation used, the subsidy rate for this scheme would
countervailed, because government direction of the
not exceed 0,95 %, meaning that the overall subsidy
banks has been removed. Although in the submitted
margin for this company would remain below de
MC 12-13 there is a provision which makes it free for
minimis level. Therefore it was not deemed necessary to
the commercial banks to determine the interest rates on
analyse this claim further in the context of this investi
export credits in foreign currency with effect from May
gation.
2012 as claimed by the GOI, such a change of
instruction of RBI to the private banks during the inves
tigation would by itself be insufficient to exclude this
scheme, since government direction may continue in
(47) In
the
absence
of
any
other
comments,
recital
112
of
the
an informal manner which would have to be the
provisional Regulation is confirmed.
subject of further investigation. However, in view of
the above conclusion on the sub-scheme concerning
export credits in rupees, the Commission has decided
not to countervail this sub-scheme concerning credits
(48) The
Indian
exporting
producer,
KEI
Industries,
was
found
in foreign currency at this stage.
not to benefit the EOUS in the IP.

---

EN
7.9.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
240/7
3.9. Amount of countervailing subsidies
(49) Following the decision not to count the benefits under the ESC as a subsidy as described in
recitals 38 to 41 and correction of EPCGS benefit calculation for one of the companies as
described in recital 35, the duty rates have been adjusted where applicable. The definitive amounts
of countervailing subsidies established in accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation,
expressed ad valorem, now range from 0,79 % to 3,72 %.
Scheme Company Raajratna Venus
Group Viraj KEI
DEPBS (*) 0,58
% 0,93
%,
1,04
%,
— 0,50
%
1,32 %, 2,04 %
DDS (*) 0,61
% 1,14
%,
1,77
%,
— 0,29
%
1,68 %, 1,91 %
AAS (*) 2,43
%
0,15 %, 0 %, 0 %,
—
—
0 %
EPCGS (*) 0,09
%
0,02 %, 0 %, 0 %,
0,03 %
—
0 %
ECS (*)
—
—
—
—
FMS (*)
— 0,13
%,
0,71
%, —
—
0,07 %, 0 %
EOU (*)
—
— 0,95
%
—
TOTAL 3,72
% 3,03
%
(**) 0,98
%
(***) 0,79
%
(***)
(*) Subsidies marked with an asterisk are export subsidies.
(**) Total subsidy margin on the basis of consolidated calculation for the Group.
(***) de minimis.
(50) The
recalculated subsidy margin for the cooperating
4.2. Union production and Sampling of Union
companies not included in the sample is 3,41 %.
producers
(54) In the absence of comments, recitals 117 to 119 of the
provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(51) The
recalculated
country-wide
subsidy
margin
is
3,72
%.
5. INJURY
4. UNION INDUSTRY
5.1. Union consumption
4.1. Union industry
(55) Some
users
claimed
that
the
injury
analyses
should
have
disregarded the data relating to 2009 because the
(52) Some
users
questioned
the
number
of
Union
producers
financial crisis which occurred that year had distorting
as stated in recital 116 of the provisional Regulation.
effects in particular on the Union consumption.
They claim that number of producers was wrongly
However, even if 2009 was excluded from the analysis,
assessed and in reality there are fewer producers
there would still be a growing trend for consumption
present on the Union market.
(+ 5 %) which is an indication of an improving market.
Moreover, the negative effects of the financial crises are
recognised in recital 120 of the provisional Regulation,
(53) The
Commission
points
out
that
the
above
claim
was
not
but was concluded that the market situation improved. In
substantiated and confirms after verification the
absence of other comments, recital 120 of the
information given in recital 116 of the provisional Regu
provisional Regulation is confirmed.
lation, namely that 27 Union producers were manufac
turing the product concerned in the Union during the IP.
5.2. Imports into the Union from the country
This is the number identified on the basis of the
concerned
complaint, at standing phase and during the investi
gation. The Commission contacted all known Union
(56) The
subsidy
margin
established
for
KEI
Industries
is
producers and received data which was used in the
below the de minimis threshold foreseen in Article 14(5)
context of the current investigation.
of the basic Regulation (see recital 49 above). Therefore,

---

L 240/8
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
7.9.2013
it is deemed that this exporting producer has not
change in the average price of the subsidised Indian
benefited from subsidy schemes within the meaning of
imports or in the undercutting calculations. The recal
Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation
culated undercutting margin is 11,7 %. For the rest, the
during the investigation period. As a result, its import
conclusions drawn from the findings described in
volumes were excluded from the volume of subsidised
recitals 128 to 130 of the provisional Regulation are
imports from India. One exporting producer, namely the
confirmed.
Venus group submitted that certain transactions were
mistakenly double counted. The Commission agreed
with the exporting producer, therefore these transactions
were removed from the total volume of subsidised
(61) In
response
to
the
final
disclosure,
the
GOI
argued
that
imports from India. Accordingly, the volume, market
the Commission had applied the pro rata reduction of
share and the average price of the subsidised imports
subsidised imports only on the import volumes of
were revised.
cooperating exporting producers in order to take

account of the de minimis findings KEI and the removal
of certain mistakenly double counted transactions of the
Venus group. This claim is based on a misunderstanding.
(57) Volume
and
market
share
of
the
subsidised
imports:
The Commission has applied the pro rata reduction to
the entire import volume, including non-cooperating
importers. The claim therefore has to be rejected.
2009 2010 2011 IP
5.3. Economic Situation of the Union industry
Volume (MT) 11
620 20
038 25
326 24
415
(62) Some parties claimed that the results obtained by the
Index (2009 = 100) 100 172 218 210
Union industry should be considered as reasonably
Market share 8,8
% 10,7
% 12,9
% 12,4
%
positive in the context of the global economic crisis
and that, with the exception of one injury indicator
Index (2009 = 100) 100 121 146 140
namely, market share, none of the other indicators
pointed to the existence of injury.
Source: Eurostat and questionnaire replies.
(63) One
party
claimed
that
the
average
selling
prices
of
the
Union industry increased by around 34 % far more than
(58) KEI
Industries
exported
limited
quantities
of
the
product
its cost of production which increased by 13 % over the
concerned during the IP and the transactions of the
same period. In this respect it needs to be noted that, at
Venus group mentioned above also constituted limited
the beginning of the period considered, namely in 2009,
quantities, therefore the deduction of these import
the Union industry was selling below cost of production,
volumes from the total volume of subsidised imports
and only managed to sell above cost of production from
from India does not result in changes concerning in
2011 onwards.
the trends as described in recitals 123 and 124 of the
provisional Regulation. Thus these recitals of the
provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(64) The
investigation
showed
that,
although
some
injury
indicators such as production volumes and capacity utili
sation followed a positive trend, or remained stable such
(59) Average
price
of
the
subsidised
imports:
as employment, a number of other indicators relating to
the financial situation of the Union industry, namely
profitability, cash flow, investment and return on
investment did not follow a satisfactory trend during
2009 2010 2011 IP
the period considered. While the indicator relating to
investments improved in 2010, it dropped below 2009
Average price
2 419 2
856 3
311 3
259
figures in 2011 and the IP. Although it is true that return
(euro/MT)
on investments improved from 2009 until 2011
reaching 6,7 %, it dropped again to 0,8 % in the IP.
Index (2009 = 100) 100 118 137 135
Similarly indicators relating to profitability and cash
Source: Eurostat and questionnaire replies.
flow improved until 2011 though they started again to
deteriorate in the IP. Therefore, it can be concluded that
the Union industry started to improve after 2009, but its
recovery was slowed down by the subsidised imports
from India subsequently.
(60) As
explained
above,
K.E.I
Industries
exported
limited
quantities during the IP and the removal of certain trans
actions of the Venus group affected only limited quan
tities. The exclusion of KEI Industries import volumes
(65) On
a
request
by
an
interested
party
it
is
confirmed
that
and the above mentioned transactions of the Venus
the stock levels established in recital 153 of the
group from the total volume of subsidised imports
provisional Regulation concerned the activity of the
from India does therefore not result in any significant
sampled Union companies.

---

EN
7.9.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
240/9
(66) The
Union
industry
argued
that
the
target
profit
margin
that the Commission cannot assume that the Union
of 5 % set at the provisional stage was too low. The party
industry will be able to maintain its market share indefi
did not substantiate its claim sufficiently. Recital 148 of
nitely.
the provisional Regulation explains the reasons behind
the choice of this profit margin and the investigation
did not reveal any other reasons to change it. Therefore,
the target profit of 5 % is maintained for the purpose of
(71) In response to these arguments it needs to be noted that
the definitive findings.
the investigation revealed the market share of the
subsidised Indian import grew with a higher pace than
the consumption in the Union market. The volume of
Indian subsidised imports increased by 110 % while
(67) One
exporting
producer
argued
that
the
Union
industry’s
consumption increased by 50 % over the same period.
difficulties are largely due to structural problems.
Furthermore the investigation also showed that the
Therefore, the target profit margin of 5 % was also
average Indian price was constantly below the average
unrealistic.
price of the Union industry during the same period
and undercut the Union industry average price by
11,7 % during the IP. As a result, while the Union
(68) It is recalled that according to the case-law ( 1 ), the Insti
industry indeed benefited from the increased
tutions need to establish the profit margin which the
consumption to a certain extent and it also could
Community industry could reasonably count on under
increase its sales volumes by 40 %, it could not
normal conditions of competition, in the absence of
maintain its market share as it could be expected under
the subsidised imports. In the present case, it has
improving market conditions and given the Union
proven impossible to carry out this analysis for the
industry’s free production capacity.
Union industry of the product concerned for the
following reasons. Sufficient information to calculate
profit margins for the product concerned is only
available as of the year 2007. In 2007, the profit
6.2. Effect of other factors
margin was 3,7 %; as of 2008, due to the financial and
economic crisis, it became negative. The complaint
6.2.1. Non-subsidised imports
argued, and the investigation established, that subsidised
imports started to arrive on the Union market as of
(72) Some
interested
parties
claimed
that
the
effect
of
the
2007, when the volume of imports increased from
non-subsidised import needed to be reassessed in light
17 727 tonnes in 2006 to 24 811,3 tonnes. Therefore,
of the fact that KEI Industries received a de minimis
the Institutions have established the target profit margins
subsidy margin and the fact that, due to double
on the basis of the real profits observed in other parts of
counting errors, certain transactions of the Venus
the steel industry, which have not suffered from dumped
group were removed from the analysis. They also
and subsidised imports (
argued that the prices of the non-subsidised imports

2 ).
were lower than the prices of the subsidised imports.
5.4. Conclusion on injury
(73) The table below shows the development of the non-
(69) The
Commission
therefore
concludes
that
the
Union
subsidised export volume and prices during the period
industry has suffered material injury during the IP.
considered. Their volume represented around a third of
Indian exports during the IP and followed the same trend
as the subsidised imports.
6. CAUSATION
6.1. Effect of subsidised imports
2009 2010 2011 IP
(70) One
exporting
producer
claimed
that
the
provisional
Regulation ignored that the Union industry was able to
Volume (MT) 5
227 9
015 11
394 10
938
benefit from the increase in consumption since 2009 and
Volume (Index) 100 172 218 210
( 1 ) Case T-210/95 European Fertilizer Manufacturer’s Association
(EFMA) v Council [1999] ECR II-3291, paragraph 60.
Average price
2 268 2
678 3
105 3
056
( 2 ) Council Regulation (EU) No 383/2009 of 5 May 2009 imposing a
(EUR/mt)
definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the
provisional duty imposed on imports of certain pre- and post-
Average price (Index) 100 118 137 135
stressing wires and wire strands of non-alloy steel (PSC wires and
strands) originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 118,
Source: Questionnaire replies and Eurostat.
13.5.2009, p. 1); Commission Regulation (EU) No 1071/2012 of
14 November 2012 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on
imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast
iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand
(OJ L 318, 15.11.2012, p. 10); Commission Regulation (EU)
(74) It is therefore
correct that prices of non-subsidised
No 845/2012 of 18 September 2012 imposing provisional anti-
imports were lower than prices of subsidised imports.
dumping duty on imports of certain organic coated steel products
originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 252, 19.9.2012,
However, the volume of non-subsidised imports is only
p. 33).
a third of the volume of subsidised imports. Therefore,

---

L 240/10
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
7.9.2013
the injury caused by non-subsidised imports does not
Average price
break the causal link between the subsidised imports,
(euro/MT)
2009 2010 2011 IP
from India and the material injury suffered by the
Union industry during the IP.
72 230 019 2
974 3
286 3
436 2
995
72 230 099 765 1
458 1
472 1
320
6.2.2. Imports from third countries
Source: Eurostat
(75) One
Indian
exporting
producer
and
the
GOI
reiterated
the claim that the People’s Republic of China should have
been included in the investigation and that the impact
the imports from the People’s Republic of China had on
(81) As concerns CN code 7223 00 19 the analyses carried
the Union market and the Union industry was underesti
out on a PCN basis showed that both the Union industry
mated.
and Indian producers were mainly competing in the
higher end of the market where prices could be up to
four times higher than prices in the lower end within the
(76) As
mentioned
in
recital
170
of
the
provisional
Regu
same CN ( 1 ). The investigation also showed that in
lation, neither at initiation stage nor at definitive stage
general price variations are linked to the product type
is there any evidence of subsidisation that may have
and the nickel content. Furthermore the investigation
justified the initiation of an anti-subsidy investigation
showed that Chinese exporters are predominantly
on imports originating in People’s Republic of China.
selling the lower quality product types falling within
The claim that People’s Republic of China should have
the abovementioned CN code in the Union market.
been included in the scope of the investigation is
Therefore, the product mix becomes a predominant
therefore not founded and is rejected.
factor in evaluating the Chinese imports.
(77) However, the imports from the People’s Republic of
China showed an increasing trend during the period
considered and reached a market share of 8,3 % in the
(82) As concerns the price level of imports from the People’s
Republic of China, it needs to be pointed out that from
IP as stated in recital 168 of the provisional Regulation.
2009 until the IP the average price of Chinese imports
In addition, the Chinese import prices were lower than
remained above the price of the subsidised Indian
the prices of the Union industry and those of the Indian
exporting producers’ prices, as can be seen from the
exporting producers in the Union market. It was,
following table showing the average price of subsidised
therefore, further investigated whether the imports from
Indian exports falling under CN code 7223 00 19.
People’s Republic of China could have contributed to the

injury suffered by the Union industry and broken the
causal link between that injury and the Indian subsidised
imports.
Average price
(euro/MT)
2009 2010 2011 IP IP
+
1
(78) The information available at the provisional stage
suggested that the product mix represented by the
73 320 019 2
974 3
286 3
436 2
995 3
093
Chinese imports was different, and that the ranges
Source: Eurostat.
where the Chinese products were present were different,
compared to the products sold by the Union industry or
even those of Indian origin products sold in the Union
market.
(83) In the IP for the first time the average Chinese import
price dropped below that of the Indian import price for
(79) After publication of the provisional measure the
subsidised imports. However, this observation was found
Commission received several claims pointing to the
to be of a temporary nature since the Chinese price level
possibility that Chinese low-priced imports during the
in the year after the IP increased and was again higher
IP would break the causal link between dumped Indian
than the Indian prices.
imports and material injury suffered by the Union
industry.
(84) Furthermore, the comparison between the import
(80) Analysis made on the basis of the import statistics
volumes from India and the People’s Republic of China
concerning the two CN codes under investigation
showed that at any point during the period considered
showed that 29 % of Chinese imports were made on
and particularly in the IP, imports from the People’s
the lower end of the market (under CN code
Republic of China were at much lower levels than the
7223 00 99). This partly explains why Chinese prices
imports from India. The import volumes for the People’s
on average are lower than those of the Union industry
Republic of China amounted to basically less than half of
and the Indian exporting producers. The statistics for CN
the total imports from India.
code 7223 00 99 also showed that the customers of the
Chinese producers were concentrated in the United
( 1 ) However, it is noted that both the Union industry and the Indian
Kingdom where the Union industry was basically not
exporting producers are also present in the lower end of the market
present.
even if to a lesser extent.

---

EN
7.9.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
240/11
(85) On the basis of the above it is confirmed that significant
7. UNION INTEREST
proportion of the Chinese imports during the IP are
different from the Union industry product mix and that
7.1. General considerations
any direct competition with the products produced and
sold by the Union industry is limited.
(91) In the absence of comments, recital 180 of the
provisional Regulation is confirmed.
(86) Therefore, the imports from the People’s Republic of
China could not have affected the situation of the
7.2. Interest of the Union industry
Union industry to the extent to break the causal link
between the subsidised imports from India and the
(92) In the absence of comments, recitals 181 to 188 of the
injury suffered by the Union industry. Therefore,
provisional Regulation are confirmed.
recital 168 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.
7.3. Interest of users
6.2.3. Competition from other producers in the Union
(93) Following
the
imposition
of
the
provisional
measures,
(87) One party argued that the Union producers’ poor
seven users and one users’ association contacted the
financial performance might have been caused by
Commission and showed interest to cooperate in the
competition from other Union producers which were
investigation. Following their request, questionnaires
not complainants or did not express their support for
were sent to them in April 2013. However, only two
the investigation at the initiation of the case.
users submitted a full questionnaire reply and overall
the cooperating users represented 12 % of total imports
from India during the IP and 2,5 % of the total Union
consumption. The economic impact of the measures on
(88) The
market share of other producers
in the Union
users was reassessed on the basis of the new data
developed as follows:
available in the questionnaire replies and two users
were visited to verify the information provided.
2009 2010 2011 IP
(94) Users claimed that the level of profitability of 9 %, stated
Volume (MT) 34
926 55
740 55
124 55
124
in recital 191 of the provisional Regulation was too high
and was not representative for the users’ industry.
Index (2009 = 100) 100 160 158 158
Following the receipt of the additional questionnaire
replies the average profitability of all cooperating users
Market share of
26,6 % 29,8
% 28,1
% 27,9
%
was recalculated and established at 2 % on turnover.
other producers in
the Union
Source: Complaint.
(95) It was also found that on average concerning the
cooperating users, purchases from India constituted
44 % of the total purchases of the product concerned,
and that India represented the exclusive source of supply
(89) The
Union
producers
which
were
not
complainants
and
which did not specifically express support to the inves
for two cooperating users. During the IP, the turnover of
tigation accounted for 44 % of total Union sales reported
the product incorporating the product concerned repre
in recital 139 to the provisional Regulation. Their sales
sented on average 14 % of turnover of the cooperating
volume increased by 58 % from an estimated 34 926
users.
tonnes in 2009 to 55 124 tonnes during the period
considered. However, such growth is relatively modest
if compared to the growth of the subsidised imports
from India in the same period (+ 110 %). Furthermore,
(96) Assuming the worst case scenario for the Union market,
the market share of those Union producers remained
i.e. that no potential price increase could be passed on to
relatively stable during the period considered and no
the distribution chain and that the users would continue
indication was found that their prices were lower than
purchasing from India in previous volumes, the impact
those of the sampled Union producers. It is therefore
of the duty on the users’ profitability achieved from
concluded that their sales on the Union market did not
activities using or incorporating the product concerned
contribute to the injury suffered by the Union industry.
would mean on average a decrease by 0,25 percentage
points to 1,75 %.
6.3. Conclusion on causation
(97) The
Commission
acknowledges
that
the
impact
will
be
(90) In the absence of comments, recitals 176 to 179 of the
more important, on an individual level, for those users
provisional Regulation are confirmed.
which source their entire imports from India. However,

---

L 240/12
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
7.9.2013
these are relatively few in number (two of the
7.4. Interest of unrelated importers
cooperating users). Furthermore, they have the possibility,
provided that their Indian producer cooperates, to
(102) In the absence of comments, recitals 197 to 199 of the
request the refund of the duties pursuant to Article 21
provisional Regulation are confirmed.
of the basic Regulation, if all conditions for such a refund
are met.
7.5. Conclusion on Union interest
(103) In view of the above, the assessment in recitals 200 and
(98) Some
users
reiterated
the
concern
that
measures
would
201 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.
hit certain type of wires not produced in Europe, namely
types included in the so-called series 200 as described in
recital 194 of the provisional Regulation. According to
the users, the absence of production in the Union is due
8. DEFINITIVE COUNTERVAILING MEASURES
to the limited demand and to the specificity of the
production process.
8.1. Injury elimination level
(104) In absence of any comments, recitals 203 to 206 of the
provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(99) However,
the
investigation
showed
that
such
types
of
stainless steel wires are produced by the Union
industry and that they represent a limited share of the
8.2. Conclusion on injury elimination level
Union market. There are also alternative sources of
supply available for users from countries not subject to
(105) No individual injury margin was calculated for KEI
anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures. In addition, two
Industries since this company’s definitive subsidy
Indian exporting producers received 0 % countervailing
margin was at a de minimis level as stated in recital 49
duty rate, therefore the imposition of the measures will
above.
have no have significant effects on supplies from them.
Furthermore, other product types of stainless steel wires
can be used for the same purposes. Therefore, the
imposition of the measures cannot have a significant
(106) The methodology used in the provisional Regulation is
impact on the Union market or on these users. This
hereby confirmed.
claim is therefore rejected.
8.3. Definitive measures
(100) Some users pointed out the longer delivery time for the
(107) In the light of the above and in accordance with
like product by the Union producers compared to the
Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, a definitive counter
delivery time of the product concerned from India.
vailing duty should be imposed at a level sufficient to
However, the possibility for merchants and traders of
eliminate the injury caused by the subsidised imports
stocking the products and of having them swiftly
without exceeding the subsidy margin found.
available does not undermine the factual evidence of
the negative effects of the subsidised imports. Therefore,
this argument has to be rejected.
(108) Therefore, the countervailing duty rates were established
by comparing the injury margins and the subsidy
margins. Consequently, the proposed countervailing
(101) Taking the above into consideration, even if some users
duty rates are as follows:
are likely to be negatively affected more than others by
the measures on imports from India, it is considered that
in balance the Union market will benefit from the
imposition of the measures. In particular, it is considered
Injury
Counter
that restoring fair trade conditions on the Union market
Company
Subsidy
margin
margin
vailing
would allow the Union industry to align its prices with
duty rate
cost of production; to keep production and employment;
Raajratna Metal Industries 3,7
% 17,2
% 3,7
%
to regain the market share previously lost and to benefit
from increased economies of scale. This should allow the
Venus group 3,0
% 23,4
% 3,0
%
industry to reach reasonable profit margins that will
permit it to operate efficiently in the medium and long
Viraj Profiles Vpl. Ltd 0,9
% n/a 0,0
%
term. In parallel the industry will improve its overall
financial situation. In addition, the investigation estab
KEI Industries Limited 0,7
% n/a 0,0
%
lished that the measures will have an overall limited
impact on the users and on unrelated importers.
Cooperating non-sampled 3,4 % 19,3
% 3,4
%
Therefore it is concluded that the overall benefit of the
companies
measures appears to outweigh the impact on the users of
All other companies 3,7
% 23,4
% 3,7
%
the product concerned in the Union market.

---

EN
7.9.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
240/13
(109) The individual company countervailing duty rates
currently falling within CN codes 7223 00 19 and 7223 00 99
specified in this working document were established on
and originating in India.
the basis of the findings of the present investigation.
Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that
investigation with respect to these companies. These
2. The
rate
of
the
definitive
countervailing
duty
applicable
to
duty rates (as opposed to the country-wide duty
the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product
applicable to ‘all other companies’) are exclusively
described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies
applicable to imports of products originating in India
below shall be:
and produced by the specific legal entities mentioned.
Imported products produced by any other company
not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this
working document, including entities related to those
Company Duty
(%)
TARIC
specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates
additional code
and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all
other companies’.
Raajratna Metal Industries, Ahmedabad,
3,7 B775

Gujarat
Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd,
3,0 B776
(110) Any claim requesting the application of an individual
Mumbai, Maharashtra
company countervailing duty rates (e.g. following a
change in the name of the entity or following the
Precision Metals, Mumbai, Maharashtra 3,0 B777
setting up of new production or sales entities) should
be addressed to the Commission (
Hindustan Inox Ltd, Mumbai,
3,0 B778

1 ) forthwith with all
Maharashtra
relevant information, in particular any modification in
the company’s activities linked to production, domestic
Sieves Manufacturer India Pvt. Ltd,
3,0 B779
and export sales associated with, for example, that name
Mumbai, Maharashtra
change or that change in the production and sales
entities. If appropriate, the Regulation imposing the
Viraj Profiles Vpl. Ltd, Thane,
0,0 B780
definitive countervailing duties will be amended
Maharashtra
accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting
from individual duty rates.
KEI Industries Limited, New Delhi 0,0 B925
Companies listed in the Annex 3,4
8.4. Definitive collection of provisional counter
All other companies 3,7 B999
vailing duties
(111) In view of the magnitude of the subsidy margins found
and in the light of the level of the injury caused to the
Union industry, it is considered necessary that the
3. Unless
otherwise
specified,
the
provisions
in
force
amounts secured by way of the provisional counter
concerning customs duties shall apply.
vailing duty, imposed by the provisional Regulation be
definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the
definitive duties imposed.
Article 2
Amounts secured by way of provisional countervailing duties in
accordance with Regulation (EU) No 419/2013 on imports of
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
wire of stainless steel containing by weight:
Article 1
(i) 2,5 % or more of nickel, other than wire containing by
1. A
definitive
countervailing
duty
is
hereby
imposed
on
weight 28 % or more but not more than 31 % of nickel
imports of wire of stainless steel containing by weight:
and 20 % or more but not more than 22 % of chromium,
(i) 2,5 % or more of nickel, other than wire containing by
(ii) less than 2,5 % of nickel, other than wire containing by
weight 28 % or more but not more than 31 % of nickel
weight 13 % or more but not more than 25 % of
and 20 % or more but not more than 22 % of chromium,
chromium and 3,5 % or more but not more than 6 % of
aluminium,
(ii) less than 2,5 % of nickel, other than wire containing by
weight 13 % or more but not more than 25 % of
currently falling within CN codes 7223 00 19 and 7223 00 99
chromium and 3,5 % or more but not more than 6 % of
and originating in India,
aluminium,
( 1 ) European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate H,
shall be definitively collected. The amounts secured in excess of
1049 Brussels, Belgium.
the definitive rates of the countervailing duty shall be released.

---

L 240/14
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
7.9.2013
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the
European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 2 September 2013.
For the Council
The President
L. LINKEVIIUS
ANNEX
INDIAN COOPERATING EXPORTING PRODUCERS NOT SAMPLED
Company name City TARIC
additional
code
Bekaert Mukand Wire Industries Lonand,
Tal.
Khandala,
Satara
B781
District, Maharastra
Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd Mumbai,
Maharashtra B781
Bhansali Stainless Wire Mumbai,
Maharashtra B781
Chandan Steel Mumbai,
Maharashtra B781
Drawmet Wires Bhiwadi,
Rajastan B781
Garg Inox Ltd Bahadurgarh,
Haryana B931
Jyoti Steel Industries Ltd Mumbai,
Maharashtra B781
Macro Bars and Wires Mumbai,
Maharashtra B932
Mukand Ltd Thane B781
Nevatia Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd Mumbai,
Maharashtra B933
Panchmahal Steel Ltd Dist.
Panchmahals,
Gujarat B781

---

Document Outline

• �

---