HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
24.4.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
112/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 372/2013
of 22 April 2013
amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People’s Republic of China
following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
‘all other companies’ imposed by Regulation (EC) No
1174/2005 to hand pallet trucks and their essential
parts consigned from Thailand whether declared as orig
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
inating in Thailand or not.
Union,
(4) In
October
2011,
by
Implementing
Regulation
(EU)
No
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
1008/2011 ( 5 ), the Council imposed a definitive anti-
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
dumping duty on imports of hand pallet trucks and
from countries not members of the European Community ( 1 )
their essential parts originating in the PRC following an
(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) and
expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic
Article 11(3), (5) and (6) thereof,
Regulation. The extended duty as mentioned in recital
3 above was also maintained by Implementing Regu
lation (EU) No 1008/2011.
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European
Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,
2. Initiation of a partial interim review
(5) During
the
expiry
review
the
European
Commission
Whereas:
(‘Commission’) noticed a change in the competition
landscape on the Union market as of the imposition of
the measures. Indeed, the Chinese exporting producer
A. PROCEDURE
with the lowest duty rate — who was granted market
1. Previous investigations and existing anti-dumping
economy treatment (‘MET’) in the original investigation
measures
— was able to virtually take over a very big part of the

Union market and increased significantly its share of
(1) In
July
2005,
by
Regulation
(EC)
No
1174/2005
( 2 ), the
imports in the Union. The Commission also had
Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on
doubts with regard to the original MET determination
imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts
in view of prima facie evidence of distortions on the
originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the
steel market in the PRC. In this context, the circum
PRC’). The measures consisted of an ad valorem anti-
stances on the basis of which the existing measures
dumping duty ranging between 7,6 % and 46,7 %.
were established were considered to have changed and
those changes seemed to be of a lasting nature.
(2) In
July
2008,
by
Regulation
(EC)
No
684/2008
( 3 ), the
Council, following a product scope interim review,
(6) Having
determined,
after
consulting
the
Advisory
clarified the product scope of the original investigation.
Committee, that sufficient evidence existed to justify
the initiation of a partial interim review, the Commission
announced by a notice published on 14 February 2012
(3) In
June
2009,
by
Regulation
(EC)
No
499/2009
(
in the Official Journal of the European Union (

4 ), the

6 ) (‘the Notice
Council, following an anti-circumvention investigation,
of initiation’), the ex-officio initiation of a partial interim
extended the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to
review in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic
Regulation limited in scope to the examination of
dumping in respect of Chinese exporting producers.
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
( 2 ) OJ L 189, 21.7.2005, p. 1.
( 3 ) OJ L 192, 19.7.2008, p. 1.
( 5 ) OJ L 268, 13.10.2011, p. 1.
( 4 ) OJ L 151, 16.6.2009, p. 1.
( 6 ) OJ C 41, 14.2.2012, p. 14.

---

L 112/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
24.4.2013
3. Review investigation period
product scope interim review, namely hand pallet trucks
and their essential parts, i.e. chassis and hydraulics, orig
(7)
The investigation of the level of dumping covered the
inating in the PRC, currently falling within CN codes
period from 1 January to 31 December 2011 (‘the
ex 8427 90 00 and ex 8431 20 00. For the purpose of
review investigation period’ or ‘the RIP’).
this Regulation, hand pallet trucks are trucks with wheels
supporting lifting fork arms for handling pallets, designed
4. Parties concerned
to be manually pushed, pulled and steered, on smooth,
level, hard surfaces, by a pedestrian operator using an
(8) The
Commission
officially
advised
exporting
producers,
articulated tiller. The hand pallet trucks are only
unrelated importers known to be concerned, the auth
designed to raise a load, by pumping the tiller, to a
orities of the PRC and the Union industry of the
height sufficient for transporting and do not have any
initiation of the partial interim review. Interested parties
other additional functions or uses such as for example: (i)
were given the opportunity to make their views known
to move and to lift the loads in order to place them
in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit
higher or assist in storage of loads (highlifters); (ii) to
set out in the Notice of initiation.
stack one pallet above the other (stackers); (iii) to lift
the load to a working level (scissorlifts); or (iv) to lift
and to weigh the loads (weighing trucks).
(9) All
interested
parties,
who
so
requested
and
showed
that
there were particular reasons why they should be heard,
were granted a hearing.
2. Like product
(10) In
view
of
the
potentially
large
number
of
exporting
(15) The
investigation
confirmed
that
the
product
concerned
producers and unrelated importers, it was considered
and the product manufactured and sold on the domestic
appropriate, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic
market in the PRC, the product manufactured and sold in
Regulation, to examine whether sampling should be used.
the analogue country, Brazil, and the product manu
In order to enable the Commission to decide whether
factured and sold in the Union by the Union producers
sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a
have the same basic physical and technical characteristics
sample, the above parties were requested, pursuant to
as well as the same uses.
Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to make themselves
known within 15 days of the initiation of the review and
to provide the Commission with information requested
(16) Those
products
are therefore
considered to be alike
in the Notice of initiation. Two exporting producers and
within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regu
eight unrelated importers came forward to cooperate.
lation.
Sampling was therefore not necessary for both
exporting producers and unrelated importers.
C. DUMPING
(11) The
Commission
sent
questionnaires
and
MET
claim
(a) Market economy treatment (‘MET’)
forms to all parties known to be concerned and to
those who made themselves known within the
(17) Pursuant
to
Article
2(7)(b)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
in
deadlines set in the Notice of initiation. Replies were
anti-dumping investigations concerning imports orig
received from one Chinese exporting producer,
inating in the PRC normal value is determined in
Zhejiang Noblelift Equipment Joint Stock Co. Ltd (‘Noble
accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of that Article for
lift’), and from three unrelated importers.
those producers which were found to meet the criteria
laid down in point (c) of Article 2(7) of the basic Regu
lation, i.e. where it is shown that market economy
(12) The
Commission
sought
and
verified
all
information
it
conditions prevail in respect of the manufacture and
deemed necessary for the determination of dumping. A
sale of the like product. For ease of reference only,
verification visit was carried out at the premises of
these criteria are set out in a summarised form as
Noblelift in Changxing, PRC.
follows:
(13) In
light
of
the
need
to
establish
a
normal
value
for
the
exporting producer in the PRC to which MET was not
— business decisions and costs are made in response to
granted, a verification at the premises of the following
market signals and without significant State inter
producer in Brazil, which was used as an analogue
ference; and costs of major inputs substantially
country, took place:
reflect market values,
— Paletrans Equipamentos Ltda, Cravinhos, So Paulo
(‘Paletrans’).
— firms have one clear set of basic accounting records
which are independently audited in line with inter
national accounting standards and are applied for all
B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
purposes,
1. Product concerned
(14) The
product
concerned
by
this
review
is
the
same
as
the
— there are no significant distortions carried over from
one in the original investigation and clarified by the
the former non-market economy system,

---

EN
24.4.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
112/3
— bankruptcy and property laws guarantee legal
(23) The exporting producer concerned and the Union
certainty and stability,
industry were given an opportunity to comment on the
above findings.
— exchange rate conversions are carried out at market
rates.
(24) Following the disclosure of the MET findings, Noblelift
(18) Noblelift,
requested
MET
pursuant
to
Article
2(7)(b)
of
requested more details with regard to the calculation of
the basic Regulation and replied to the MET claim form
the international market price for steel. The company
within the deadlines given.
argued that distortions in raw material prices should be
dealt with by adjusting the normal value in the dumping
calculation rather than by denying MET. However,
(19) The Commission sought all information deemed
Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation is very clear and
necessary and verified all information submitted in the
requires that ‘costs of major inputs substantially reflect
MET application at the premises of the company in
market values’. Hence, any adjustment in the dumping
question.
calculations in order to address the distorted input costs
would render Article 2(7)(c) largely meaningless. The
comments could therefore not alter the above findings.
(20) The
investigation
established
that
the
prices
paid
by
Noblelift in the RIP for Chinese hot-rolled carbon steel,
a main raw material accounting for about 25 % of the
cost of a finished product, were significantly distorted as
they stood approximately between 24 % and 31 % below
(25) Following
the
disclosure
of
the
final
findings,
Noblelift
international prices over the same period. The inter
reiterated its arguments. It stated firstly that the
national prices were based on statistics for the Union
Commission failed to disclose the details, i.e. all the
and North American markets from the Steel Business
data used for the calculation of differences in raw
Briefing (
material prices.

1 ) as well as from Comext import prices. On

that basis it was found that Chinese steel prices clearly
did not reflect market values. Moreover, there is an estab
lished practice of State interference in the market of raw
materials. The China 12th five-year plan (2011-15) for
(26) In this respect, it is noted first and foremost that the
the Iron and Steel sector contains a series of measures
sources of data for the comparisons of steel prices
which demonstrate that steel companies have no possi
have been indicated by the Commission on several occa
bility other than to act in line with the Chinese
sions. The Commission repeated the explanations
Government instructions due to the firm control the
provided earlier in the proceeding that the prices based
Chinese State has. It is thus concluded that Noblelift
on the Steel Business Briefing were copyright protected
does not fulfil the requirements of the first criterion of
as the service is available on subscription. Consequently,
MET.
the Commission is legally prevented from publicly
disclosing those data directly but the database is
otherwise available and can be accessed with payment
(21) Furthermore, in the financial year 2010, a related
of the appropriate fee. Nevertheless, in order to ensure
company gave Noblelift a bank guarantee for two loans
a balance between the protection of intellectual property
representing a significant proportion of that related
rights and the protection of the rights of defence, the
company’s and Noblelift’s total assets. The guarantees
data used was verified by the Hearing Officer of the
were disclosed neither in Noblelift’s financial statements
Directorate-General for External Trade, who confirmed
nor in the related company’s accounts. This is not in line
the calculation of the price difference and communicated
with IAS 24 (Related Party Disclosures) and the auditor
the result of his verification to Noblelift.
had no reservation on this practice. The disclosure of
related party transactions in the financial statements is
important because it draws attention to possible effects
on the financial position of a company. In this case, the
non-disclosure of significant commitments such as the
(27) It is further noted that the Steel Business Briefing
guarantees in question does not allow a proper
describes exactly the methodology used (dimensions,
assessment of the company’s operations and in particular
thickness, width, point in transport). Those parameters
the risks and opportunities the company is facing.
are general and are a guide which is also indicative of
Therefore, it is considered that the company’s accounting
the level of detail in price comparisons of raw materials
records have not been properly audited in line with inter
which aim at establishing whether costs of major inputs
national accounting standards and, thus, it does not fulfil
substantially reflect market values. The Commission has
the requirements of the second criterion.
used European and North American prices as reference.
(22) Finally,
Noblelift
received
State
benefits
in
the
form
of
preferential income tax as well as grants which distort its
(28) Noblelift
further
claimed
that
in
the
original
investi
financial situation and, thus, it does not fulfil the
gation, differences between domestic steel prices in the
requirements of the third criterion.
PRC and international steel prices were not considered as
a factor preventing the company from meeting the first
( 1 ) http://www.steelbb.com/steelprices/
MET criterion. As stated in recital 22 of Commission

---

L 112/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
24.4.2013
Regulation (EC) No 128/2005 ( 1 ) of 27 January 2005
is noted however that the timing of the determination
imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty in the
did not have an impact on the outcome.
framework of the original investigation, ‘For all four
companies, it was established (…) that costs and prices
reflected market values’. Indeed, the original investigation
did not establish a substantial price difference between
(31) Consequently, it is concluded that the comments
raw materials procured locally in the PRC and those
suggesting that MET should be granted are not justified.
purchased at international prices. However, this
conclusion cannot prevent the institutions from finding
a price difference in a later investigation should the
circumstances be different and there is a price difference.
(32) In
view
of
the
above
and
pursuant
to
Article
2(7)(c)
of
As indicated in recital 76 below the circumstances have
the basic Regulation, it is determined not to grant MET
significantly changed since 2004 (time of the original
to Noblelift.
investigation) and 2011 (the IP of the review at hand),
i.e. in a period of seven years. In this regard, and in
particular during the expiry review investigation in
2010, prima facie evidence of price distortions in the
steel market in the PRC, due to State interference, were
(b) Normal value
collected. This also constituted one of the reasons which
A n a l o g u e c o u n t r y
led to the ex-officio initiation of the current review and
indeed was confirmed in the current investigation (see
(33) According
to
Article
2(7)(a)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
for
recital 20 above).
non-market economy countries and, to the extent that
MET could not be granted, for countries in transition,
normal value has to be established on the basis of the
price or constructed value in an analogue country.
(29) Next,
Noblelift
reiterated
its
comments
concerning
the
non-material impact of loan guarantees or the negligible
impact of state benefits. In this respect, it is noted that
(34) In the original investigation, Canada served as an
Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation is clear and does
analogue country for the purposes of establishing a
not refer to material impact on financial results (‘firms
normal value. Given that production in Canada had
have one set of basic accounting records which are inde
ceased, Brazil was envisaged as an analogue country in
pendently audited in line with international accounting
the Notice of initiation of the present review.
standards and are applied for all purposes’). In any case,
as stated above in recital 21, the non-disclosure of
significant commitments such as the loan guarantees in
question does not allow a proper assessment of the
(35) Two
exporting
producers
and
an
importer
objected
to
company’s operations and in particular the risks and
the proposal to use Brazil as an analogue country. The
opportunities the company is facing. As far as state
arguments against the choice of Brazil were that there
benefits are concerned, the Commission has already
was a low degree of competition on the Brazilian market
replied to the party in the course of the investigation
for hand pallet trucks due to the very small number of
that those benefits represented amounts exceeding
domestic producers and, thus, sales prices, profits as well
10 million RMB. The claims could thus not be accepted.
as production costs in Brazil are inflated. The exporting
producers in question suggested India, Malaysia or
Taiwan as appropriate analogue countries.
(30) Finally,
Noblelift
argued
that
the
investigation
should
have been terminated due to violation of the three-
month deadline for the MET determination as specified
(36) Following
those
comments,
the
Commission
contacted
in Article 2(7)(c) the basic Regulation. In this respect,
38 Indian, 3 Taiwanese, 2 Malaysian and 2 Brazilian
reference is made to an amendment introduced by Regu
known producers of hand pallet trucks by sending
lation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament
them the relevant questionnaire. Cooperation could be
and of the Council of 12 December 2012 amending
obtained from only one producer in Brazil: Paletrans.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection
against dumped imports from countries not members
of the European Community ( 2 ) and the retroactive
effects thereof. Further, it is noted that the MET deter
(37) Following the disclosure of the final findings and the
mination was made more than three months after the
Commission’s proposal, parties reiterated their
beginning of the investigation due to the procedural
comments that Brazil was not an appropriate choice of
aspects and time constraints of the investigation.
analogue country due to the lack of competition on the
Indeed, the increased complexity of issues raised in the
Brazilian market. Parties alleged that the cooperating
context of MET assessments has shown that the three-
analogue country producer enjoyed a monopolistic
month deadline was virtually impossible to adhere to. It
position on the Brazilian market reinforced by high
import duties. Other comments related to deficiencies
( 1 ) OJ L 25, 28.1.2005, p. 16.
in the non-confidential questionnaire reply of the
( 2 ) OJ L 344, 14.12.2012, p. 1.
analogue country producer. Finally, it was claimed that

---

EN
24.4.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
112/5
adjustments should be made to account for differences
(44) Consequently, Brazil is considered an appropriate
between the analogue country producer and the
analogue country since there is sufficient competition
exporting producer in the country concerned.
with at least two producers and a significant level of
imports.
(38) As
concerns
the
suitability
of
Brazil
as
an
analogue
country, it has to be pointed out that while the
analogue country producer is the main producer on the
D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f n o r m a l v a l u e
Brazilian market, it does not monopolise that market.
(45) In
accordance
with
Article
2(2)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
There is competition with at least two local producers
the Commission first examined whether Paletrans’
and a significant level of imports, and the profit margin
domestic sales of the like product to independent
of the analogue country producer has been found to be
customers were representative. In this respect, it was
consistent with an open market.
found that the total volume of such sales was equal to
at least 5 % of the total volume of Noblelift’s export sales
to the Union.
(39) As
stated
in
recital
36
above,
following
comments
at
the
early stage of the proceeding against the use of Brazil as
an analogue country, the Commission contacted 45
producers in four different countries, including the
(46) The
Commission
subsequently
examined
whether
there
companies suggested by Noblelift. Despite repeated
are types of the like product sold domestically by
contacts by telephone and e-mail with these companies,
Paletrans that were sufficiently comparable in terms of
only one producer from Brazil submitted the requested
functions and materials used to the types sold by
information and cooperated with the investigation.
Noblelift for export to the Union. The investigation
established that a number of types sold domestically by
Paletrans were sufficiently comparable with the types
exported by Noblelift to the Union.
(40) With
regard
to
the
alleged
deficiencies
it
has
to
be
noted
that only one producer in the analogue country
cooperated with the investigation. Such a situation is
not uncommon, but poses difficulties with regard to
the disclosure of data. Given frequent difficulties in
(47) The Commission subsequently examined for the
obtaining cooperation from analogue country producers,
analogue country producer whether each comparable
the Commission has to guarantee a high level of
type of the like product sold domestically could be
protection of confidential information. In the current
considered as being sold in the ordinary course of
case, the presentation of non-confidential data created
trade. This was done by establishing for each product
some misunderstandings concerning alleged deficiencies
type the proportion of profitable sales to independent
but they were clarified with the parties. In particular, one
customers on the domestic market during the RIP.
party claimed that deficiencies in the reply of the
analogue country producer should disqualify Brazil as
an analogue country and the investigation should be
terminated since the Commission cannot establish the
(48) Where the sales volume of a product type, sold at a net
normal value. In this respect it is noted that in the
sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of
current investigation the Commission did have all the
production, represented more than 80 % of the total
necessary information to perform a dumping calculation.
sales volume of that type, and where the weighted
average sales price of that type was equal to or higher
than the cost of production, normal value was based on
the actual domestic price. This was the case for all
(41) Consequently,
the
claims
concerning
the
suitability
of
comparable types and the normal value was calculated
Brazil as an analogue country could not be accepted.
as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales
of each comparable type made during the RIP.
(42) With
regard
to
the
claims
for
adjustments,
it
is
noted
that the level of trade differences between the Brazilian
producer and the Chinese exporting producer has been
(49) For
non-comparable
types
the
normal
value
could
be
accounted for by means of a level of trade adjustment
constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic
(see recital 59 below).
Regulation by adding to the manufacturing cost, adjusted
where necessary, a reasonable percentage for domestic
selling, general and administrative expenses and a
reasonable margin for domestic profit. The selling,
(43) Finally,
one
party
claimed
that
an
adjustment
should
be
general and administrative expenses and the profit were
made to account for an allegedly distorting effect of the
based on actual data pertaining to production and sales,
14 % import duty in the analogue country. This claim
in the ordinary course of trade, for the like product, by
cannot be accepted as no link can be established between
the producer in the analogue country. It should be noted
an import duty as such and the price level on the
that the price constructed on that basis was subject to
domestic market.
the adjustments described in recital 59, in particular to

---

L 112/6
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
24.4.2013
take account of the difference in level of trade between
comment on the calculations performed in this case. Full
export sales by Noblelift and the domestic sales of the
details of the calculations have been disclosed and redis
analogue country producer.
closed.
(50) The
sole
cooperating
exporting
producer
claimed
that
the
Commission performed dumping calculations on the
basis of ‘truncated PCNs’ and that no explanations were
(56) Consequently, the foregoing claims had to be rejected.
provided concerning the parameters used for conducting
the comparison.
(51) According
to
Article
2(11)
of
the
basic
Regulation
the
(c) Export price
dumping margin is normally established on the basis of a
(57) All
export
sales
to
the
Union
of
the
Chinese
exporting
comparison of a weighted average normal value with a
producer were made directly to independent customers
weighted average of prices of all export transactions
in the Union. Therefore, the export price was established
subject to the relevant provisions governing fair
on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the
comparison.
product concerned in accordance with Article 2(8) of the
basic Regulation.
(52) With regard to the fair comparison, it has to be noted
that the product control number is a tool used in the
investigation in order to structure and organise the
substantial amounts of very detailed data submitted by
(58) One
party
claimed
that
the
export
sales
of
chassis
and
the companies. It is an aid to conduct a more detailed
hydraulics should have been included in the calculation.
analysis of different product characteristics within the
That claim has been accepted.
category of the product concerned and the like product.
(53) The
Commission
has
collected
information
in
relation
to
a number of parameters (chassis material, chassis painted,
(d) Comparison
lift capacity, type of hydraulic system, working length,
fork, width over forks, steering wheel material, load
(59) The
comparison
between
the
weighted
average
normal
wheel material, load wheel type, brake type) but in
value and the weighted average export price was made
order to take into consideration all export transactions
on an ex-works basis and at the same level of trade. In
it was considered reasonable and it was found possible to
order to ensure a fair comparison between normal value
base the comparison in this case on certain of those
and the export price, account was taken, in accordance
parameters that constitute the most pertinent character
with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, of differences
istics (chassis material, chassis painted, steering wheel
in factors which affected prices and price comparability.
material, load wheel material, load wheel type).
For this purpose, due allowance in the form of
adjustments was made, where applicable and justified,
for differences in level of trade (estimated price difference
for sales to different type of customers in the domestic
(54) Therefore, the comparison was based on the most
market of the analogue country), transport (comprising
pertinent characteristics in order to increase the
inland freight cost in the exporting country and ocean
matching and to ensure a fair comparison. It has to be
freight for transportation to the Union), insurance (ocean
stressed that the Commission did not disregard any
insurance cost), handling, loading and ancillary costs,
information. However, it is not uncommon that certain
commissions (paid for export sales), bank charges (paid
parameters used in the product control number have a
for export sales), credit costs (based on the agreed
lesser weight and that specific parameters more than
payment terms and the prevailing interest rate) and
others form a better basis for fair comparison. No
packing costs (cost of packing materials used).
products have been disregarded from the comparison
on the basis of physical differences or for any other
reasons, nor have any new product types been created.
On the contrary, all sales were included in the
comparison. While it was acknowledged that other
(60) Following
a
claim
from
the
sole
cooperating
exporting
parameters had some impact on prices, it was found
producer, an adjustment for the differences in thickness
more appropriate that the calculations should be based
of steel used by the producer in the analogue country
on the five most relevant parameters as this led to the
and the exporting producer in the country concerned
highest level of matching.
was made to the normal value, as it was found
reasonable. The adjustment was based on the difference
in thickness in proportion to the contribution of steel to
(55) As
far
as
procedural
aspects
of the
comparison
are
the price of the like product sold in Brazil by the
concerned, it has to be noted that the exporting
analogue country producer. This led to a change in the
producer was provided with full opportunity to
dumping margin (see recital 73 below). Following an

---

EN
24.4.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
112/7
additional disclosure (inviting comments on the steel
energy efficiency and depreciation and manufacturing
thickness adjustment), one party contested that
overheads difference had not been explained and was
adjustment as lacking factual basis. It also pointed out
not understandable. The claims are thus rejected.
that the exporting producer’s non-confidential
submissions seeking the adjustment were deficient
thereby violating other parties’ rights of defence. The
(66) One
party
also
claimed
that
adjustments
should
be
made
Commission verified the data on file on which the steel
for parameters, inter alia, such as lift capacity and fork. In
thickness adjustment was based and confirmed that it
this respect, reference is made to comments concerning
was warranted.
the parameters of comparison (see recital 50 above)
where it is noted that a comparison is based on the
most relevant parameters to ensure the highest level of
(61) The sole cooperating exporter presented claims for
matching. In any case the claims were not substantiated.
several other adjustments due to differences in efficiency
and productivity, claiming, inter alia, that the producer in
the analogue country was less productive (has a lower
output per worker) and had higher consumption of raw
(67) Another
claim
was
that
adjustment
should
be
made
due
materials per unit.
to the fact that the exporting producer uses patented

technology. This claim has not been further
substantiated. Notably, the exporting producer failed to
quantify the adjustment. The only piece of information
(62) It
has
to
be
noted
at
the
outset
that
while
differences
in
provided was a document which was stated to be the
efficiency or productivity might exist between companies,
patent. In a later submission the adjustment was partially
the guiding principle is to ensure comparability between
quantified but without any supporting evidence.
export prices and normal value, which does not require
Therefore, the claim could not be accepted.
that the circumstances of an analogue country producer
and an exporting producer in a non-market economy
country are completely aligned. Indeed, only differences
for factors affecting prices and price comparability
(68) Furthermore,
the
claim
for
adjustment
for
difference
in
between an analogue country producer and an
efficiency in use of raw materials has been covered by the
exporting producer in a non-market economy country
adjustment for thickness of steel (see recital 60 above), as
warrant an adjustment.
the use of different steel thickness might lead to a lower
overall consumption of steel.
(63) Nevertheless,
it
has
to
be
pointed
out
that
the
investi
gation did not reveal any circumstances which would
(69) Finally,
the
exporting
producer
stated
that
it
sold
via
a
suggest that the producer in the analogue country did
sales channel, in particular non-branded products on an
not have a reasonably efficient production process.
OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) basis, different
from that of the producer in the analogue country.
Accordingly, a claim for an adjustment reflecting this
difference was put forward. As specified above (recital
(64) As
far
as
cost
factors
are
concerned
(e.g.
productivity),
those should not be picked and assessed individually.
59), a level of trade adjustment was made. It was based
Rather, a comprehensive analysis would be needed to
on an estimated price difference for sales to different
assess whether advantages in relation to one cost factor
types of customers, including OEM sales, in the
(e.g. productivity) are possibly compensated by
domestic market of the analogue country. For confiden
disadvantages in others. Indeed, a lower use of labour
tiality reasons the extent of this adjustment could not be
is often the result of a higher level of automation,
disclosed as it would reveal the normal value based on
which in turn leads to higher costs in other areas
data of the sole analogue country producer. It was
(depreciation, capital, financing, manufacturing over
therefore concluded that the differences for which the
heads). Only a comprehensive analysis could reveal all
adjustment was claimed have already been accounted for.
differences in cost factors and demonstrate whether
prices and price comparability are affected, thereby
justifying an adjustment. The claims cannot therefore
(70) Nevertheless,
it
has
to
be
pointed
out
that
the
exporting
be accepted.
producer failed to quantify the adjustment claimed. It
stated merely that a 40 % adjustment had been granted
in another proceeding. An adjustment granted in another
(65) In addition to the foregoing, the claims for adjustment
proceeding (hence specific to the particular circumstances
for a per-unit energy difference and for a per-unit
of another proceeding) cannot serve as such as a
depreciation and manufacturing overheads difference
benchmark for quantifying an adjustment in the
were unsubstantiated. In particular, in relation to
current case.
energy efficiency it was not explained what elements in
the production process make the Brazilian producer inef
ficient as compared to the sole cooperating exporting
(71) Following
the
additional
disclosure
(inviting
comments
producer. The amount of the adjustment was based on
on the steel thickness adjustment), the exporting
a ratio of labour cost difference per unit (based on
producer presented additional claims for adjustments
productivity difference) related to the share of labour
(unrelated to the steel thickness adjustment): adjustment
cost in total cost. The link between such ratio and
for coating, handle, and steel prices in Brazil.

---

L 112/8
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
24.4.2013
(72) It is noted first and foremost that the claims were
sizeable steel producer and exporter worldwide, which
submitted after the deadline for comments and were
fact could reasonably be considered to be of a lasting
thus formally inadmissible. In any case the claims were
nature.
either not quantified or not substantiated. The company
neither provided evidence for its claims nor did it explain
how the extent of different adjustments had been or
should be calculated.
(78) In addition, Chinese high-tech enterprises including
Noblelift are receiving State benefits in the form of pref
erential income tax (15 %) since 2008. In the investi
gation period of the original investigation, the
(e) Dumping margin
companies were subject to the standard rate of 25 %.
This changed circumstance could also reasonably be
(73) As
provided
for
under
Article
2(11)
of
the
basic
Regu
lation, the weighted average normal value by type was
considered to be of a lasting nature.
compared with the weighted average export price of the
product concerned. The dumping margin, expressed as a
percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid,
is 70,8 %.
(79) It
was
therefore
considered
that
the
circumstances
that

led to the initiation of this interim review are unlikely to
change in the foreseeable future in a manner that would
affect the findings of the interim review. Therefore it was
(74) As regards the dumping margins for all exporting
concluded that the changed circumstances are of a lasting
producers in the original investigation other than
nature and that the application of the measure at its
Noblelift, they ranged from 28,5 % to 46,7 %. Given
current level is no longer justified.
that in the current review only Noblelift cooperated
and that the cooperation could be considered high
since the vast majority of Chinese exports were those
of Noblelift, the Commission revised the country-wide
E. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
dumping margin for all other exporters as well.
(80) In
light
of
the
results
of
this
review
investigation
and
Consequently, the residual dumping margin should be
since the new dumping margin of 70,8 % is lower than
set at the same level as that of Noblelift, i.e. 70,8 %.
the injury elimination level established in the original
investigation (see recitals 120 to 123 of Regulation
(EC) No 128/2005), it is considered appropriate to
amend the anti-dumping duty applicable to imports of
(75) One
party
claimed
that
the
country-wide
duty
should
not
the product concerned both from Noblelift and from all
be set at the level of the sole cooperating exporting
other exporting producers to 70,8 %.
producer’s dumping margin as there is no evidence that
the vast majority of imports were those of that sole
cooperating exporter. In this respect, it has been
confirmed that according to statistical data the vast
(81) One
party
claimed
that
the
newly
established
dumping
majority of imports from the PRC were those of the
margin should not have been compared with the injury
sole cooperating exporting producer. The claim has
elimination level established in the original investigation.
been therefore rejected.
Rather, an injury elimination level should be established
in every investigation, even in a partial review limited to
dumping. According to that party, the current practice
D.
whereby injury is not assessed, constitutes a breach of
LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES
the lesser duty rule. The party also claimed that a full
(76) In
accordance
with
Article
11(3)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
interim review should have been opened.
it was also examined whether the changed circumstances
could reasonably be considered to be of a lasting nature.
(82) In this respect it is noted that since the Commission
initiated a partial interim review limited to dumping,
(77) In
this
regard
the
original
investigation
did
not
establish
injury could not be reassessed in this framework.
a substantial price difference between prices of raw
According to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation the
materials procured locally in the PRC by the Chinese
continued imposition of measures may be reviewed,
exporting producers (including Noblelift) and those at
where warranted, on the initiative of the Commission.
international markets. The circumstances have signifi
Hence, there is no obligation for the Commission to
cantly changed between 2004 (time of the original inves
initiate an ex-officio interim review covering both
tigation) and 2011 (the RIP) where the price of hot-rolled
dumping and injury, and in any event it should be
steel, the main raw material, stood between 24 % and
warranted. In this case, the information and evidence at
31 % below international prices. They did not reflect
the Commission’s disposal was sufficient for the initiation
market values as a result of price distortions in the
of an interim review limited to dumping. Moreover, if
steel market in the PRC (see recital 20 above). Indeed,
injury is always to be assessed in interim reviews the
the Chinese steel market changed significantly within
possibility of having a partial interim review limited to
these seven years and the PRC has shifted in the
dumping as provided for in Article 11(3) of the basic
meantime from a net steel importing country to a
Regulation would be devoid of meaning. The claim has

---

EN
24.4.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
112/9
therefore to be rejected. Nevertheless it is recalled that
(89) It
is
noted
that
pursuant
to
Article
1(3)
of
Implementing
the interested party in question has the possibility to
Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011, the 70,8
% anti-
request a partial review of injury pursuant to Article 11(3)
dumping duty imposed to ‘all other companies’ by this
of the basic Regulation.
Regulation applies to hand pallet trucks and their
essential parts, as defined in Article 1(1) of Implementing
(83) The
lesser
duty
rule
has
been
fully
respected
and
the
Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011, consigned from
newly established dumping margin was indeed
Thailand whether declared as originating in Thailand or
compared with the injury elimination level established
not,
in the original investigation (the latest injury finding).
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
(84) One
party
claimed
that
a
minimum
import
price
would
be better suited in the current case. Alternatively, a fixed
duty should be imposed.
Article 1

Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011, is
(85) In this respect it is noted that neither the minimum
replaced by the following:
import price nor the fixed duty are suitable for
products which exist in a multitude of individual types
‘2. The
rate
of
the
definitive
anti-dumping
duty
applicable
with varying prices, which are also subject to continuous
to the net free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, for the
changes and upgrades. A multitude of duty levels would
products described in paragraph 1 and produced by the
be very difficult to administer. An additional limitation of
companies listed bellow shall be as follows:
the current case is that the minimum import price would
have to be based on the normal value (since the duty is
based on dumping), which is based on confidential data
Rate of
TARIC
of one company in an analogue country market. The
Company
duty
additional
(%)
code
claims are thus rejected.
Zhejiang Noblelift Equipment Joint Stock Co. 70,8 A603
(86) The
exporting
producer
expressed
interest
in
an
under
Ltd, 58, Jing Yi Road, Economy Development
taking within the statutory deadlines. However, no
Zone, Changxing, Zhejiang Province, 313100,
formal offer was submitted and thus the Commission
PRC
was not in a position to consider it further.
(87) Interested
parties
were
informed
of
the
essential
facts
and
All other companies 70,8 A999’
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to
amend the duty rates applicable to exporting producers
and were given the opportunity to comment.
Article 2
(88) The
oral
and
written
comments
submitted
by
the
parties
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its
were considered.
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, 22 April 2013.
For the Council
The President
S. COVENEY

---

Document Outline

• �

---