HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
7.1.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
5/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 2/2012
of 4 January 2012
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts
thereof originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan following an expiry review
pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
(3) The
Regulation
which
led
to
the
imposition
of
the
definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain SSF
originating, inter alia, in the People’s Republic of China
(‘PRC’) and Taiwan, will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
original Regulation’. The investigation that led to the
Union,
measures imposed by the original Regulation on the
countries concerned will be hereinafter referred to as
‘the original investigation’.
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
from countries not members of the European Community ( 1 )
(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 11(2) thereof,
2. Request for an expiry review
(4) Following the publication of a notice of impending
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European
expiry ( 4 ) of the definitive anti-dumping measures in
Commission (‘Commission’) after consulting the Advisory
force, the Commission received on 19 August 2010 a
Committee,
request for the initiation of an expiry review of these
measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regu
lation. The request was lodged by the European Industrial
Whereas:
Fasteners Institute (‘EIFI’) (‘the applicant’) on behalf of five
Union producers: Bulnava SRL, Inox Viti di Cattinori
Bruno & C. SNC, Inox Bolt SRL, Bontempi Vibo SpA.
and Ugivis SA representing a major proportion, in this
A. PROCEDURE
case more than 25 %, of the total Union production of
SSF.
1. Measures in force
(1) By
Regulation
(EC)
No
1890/2005
( 2 ) the Council
imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected
definitively the provisional duties imposed on imports
(5) The
request
was
limited
to
the
anti-dumping
measures
of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof
imposed on imports originating in the PRC and Taiwan
(‘SSF’) originating in the People’s Republic of China,
(‘the countries concerned’). Consequently, the anti-
Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. At the same
dumping measures imposed by the original Regulation
time, the proceeding on imports of SSF originating in
on imports of SSF originating in Vietnam, Indonesia
Malaysia and the Philippines was terminated.
and Thailand are not subject to this review.
(2) On
25
August
2009,
following
a
review
initiated
on
the
basis of Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the
Council, by Regulation (EC) No 768/2009 (
(6)
The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of

3 ) amended
the abovementioned measures as far as one exporting
the measures imposed on imports of SSF originating in
producer in Vietnam is concerned.
the countries concerned would be likely to result in a
continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the
Union industry.
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
( 2 ) OJ L 302, 19.11.2005, p. 1.
( 3 ) OJ L 221, 25.8.2009, p. 1.
( 4 ) OJ C 129, 19.5.2010, p. 16.

---

L 5/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
7.1.2012
3. Initiation of an expiry review
(13) Thirty six Taiwanese exporters/groups of exporters
provided the requested information and agreed to be
(7) Having
determined,
after
consulting
the
Advisory
included in the sample. Ten of them could not be
Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the
taken into account as they appeared to be trading
initiation of an expiry review, the Commission
companies only or did not export to the Union in the
announced on 19 November 2010, by a notice
RIP. On the basis of the information received from the
published in the Official Journal of the European
cooperating Taiwanese companies, the Commission
Union ( 1 ), the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to
selected a sample of four exporting producers.
Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation (‘notice of
Subsequently one sampled company withdrew its coop
initiation’).
eration. The remaining three sampled companies repre
sented 41,6 % of the Taiwanese exports to EU during the
RIP.
4. Investigation
4.1. Review investigation period and the period considered
(14) As
regards
unrelated
importers
in
the
Union,
out
of
eight
(8)
The investigation of continuation of dumping covered
companies which provided the requested information,
the period from 1 October 2009 to 30 September
the three largest ones representing almost 90 % of the
2010 (‘the review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’). The
imported volume reported by the cooperating companies
examination of the trends relevant for the assessment
were selected for the sample. Subsequently only one
of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of
importer submitted a questionnaire reply.
injury covered the period from 1 January 2007 to the
end of the review investigation period (‘the period
considered’).
(15) Twelve Union producers provided the requested
information and agreed to be included in the sample.
On the basis of the information received from the coop
4.2. Parties concerned by the investigation
erating Union producers, the Commission selected a
(9) The
Commission
officially
advised
the
applicant,
other
sample of six Union producers. Subsequently one
known Union producers, exporting producers, importers,
sampled Union producer withdrew its cooperation. The
users in the Union known to be concerned and their
remaining five sampled producers represented 38 % of
associations, and the representatives of the countries
the sales by all Union producers to unrelated customers
concerned of the initiation of the expiry review.
in the EU during the RIP.
(10) The
Commission
also
gave
interested
parties
the
oppor
(16) The
Commission sent questionnaires
to the sampled
tunity to make their views known in writing and to
parties and to all users known to be concerned. As
request a hearing within the time limit set out in the
explained above, replies to the questionnaires were
notice of initiation. All interested parties, who so
received from five Union producers, three exporting
requested and showed that there were particular
producers from Taiwan and one importer. None of the
reasons why they should be heard, were granted a
users contacted came forward or made themselves
hearing.
known in the course of the investigation.
(11) In
view
of the
apparent
large
number of exporting
producers from the countries concerned, unrelated
(17) As explained in recitals 13 and 15 one sampled
importers in the Union and Union producers involved
Taiwanese exporting producer and one sampled