HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
9.8.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
204/11
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 792/2011
of 5 August 2011
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
imports of certain ring binder mechanisms originating in Thailand
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
submissions making known their views on the provi
sional findings. The parties who so requested, in
particular two importers and the Thai producer, were
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
granted the opportunity to be heard.
Union,
(5) The
Commission
continued
to
seek
and
verify
all
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
information it deemed necessary for its definitive
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
findings with respect to dumping, injury, causality and
from countries not members of the European Community ( 1 ),
Union interest. In addition to the verifications mentioned
(the basic Regulation) and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,
in recital 6 of the provisional Regulation, a further verifi
cation was carried out at the premises of Rima Benelux
Holding BV, the only user that had cooperated in the
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European
investigation by replying to a user’s questionnaire.
Commission (the Commission) after having consulted the
Advisory Committee,
(6) All
parties
were
informed
of
the
essential
facts
and
Whereas:
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to
recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping
duty on imports of certain ring binder mechanisms orig
1.
inating in Thailand and the definitive collection of the
PROVISIONAL MEASURES
amounts secured by way of the provisional duty. They
(1) The
Commission,
by
Regulation
(EU)
No
118/2011
of
were also granted a period of time within which they
10 February 2011
(
could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.

2 ) (the provisional Regulation)

imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports
of certain ring binder mechanisms originating in
Thailand.
(7) The
oral
and
written
comments
submitted
by
the
interested parties were considered and taken into
account where appropriate.
(2)
The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint
lodged on 6 April 2010 by Ring Alliance Ringbuch
technik GmbH (the complainant) on behalf of
3. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
producers representing a major proportion, in this case
more than 50 % of the total Union production of certain
(8) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
concerning
the
product
ring binder mechanisms (RBM). The complaint contained
concerned and the like product, recitals 8 to 11 of the
prima facie evidence of dumping of the said product and
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
of material injury resulting there from, which was
considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a
proceeding.
4. DUMPING
4.1. Normal Value
(3)
It is recalled that, as set out in recital 7 of the provisional
Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury
(9) It
is
recalled
that,
as
explained
in
recital
14
of
the
provi
covered the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March
sional Regulation, only one Thai exporting producer
2010 (‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination
cooperated in the investigation and that its exports to
of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered
the Union during the IP accounted for all Thai exports to
the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the inves
the Union. The exporting producer and one cooperating
tigation period (injury investigation period).
unrelated importer claimed that the independent external
expert who assisted the Commission during the on-spot
visit to the exporting producer made some calculation
2. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE
errors in his report. One of the tasks of the expert was
to examine the nickel coating process and the amount of
(4)
Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and
raw materials consumed by the exporting producer in the
considerations on the basis of which it was decided to
different production phases. As mentioned in recital 15
impose provisional anti-dumping measures (provisional
of the provisional Regulation, the investigation revealed
disclosure), several interested parties made written
that the exporting producer provided incomplete and
incorrect information with regard to significant
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
elements of its cost of production and other raw
( 2 ) OJ L 37, 11.2.2011, p. 2.
materials. The allegations made by the exporting

---

L 204/12
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
9.8.2011
producer and an importer regarding calculation errors in
same product and decided to accept this claim and to
the expert’s report were examined by the Commission
change the profit level used in the calculation of the
and it was concluded that they were not founded.
normal values accordingly.
Therefore, the findings as set out in recital 15 of the
provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(14) Further
to
final
disclosure,
the
Union
industry
and
the
exporting producer submitted some comments. The
(10) The
exporting
producer
and
an
importer
also
contested
Union industry disagreed with the correction made
the provisional findings as set out in recitals 19 to 20 of
regarding the profit margin arguing that a profit rate of
the provisional Regulation. In particular, they claimed
5 % would not be sufficient to cover the profitability
that the methodology used for the provisional deter
requirements of the three related companies involved in
mination of the normal value for types other than
the production and sales of the product concerned, but
those for which a specific normal value was established
without providing any other substantial arguments.
was over-stated, because it had been incorrectly based on
Therefore, the claim was rejected.
an arithmetic average of the normal values. The
Commission accepted the claim, adjusted the
methodology and revised the calculation of the normal
values for these other types taking account of the
product mix of the Thai producer, which more accurately
(15) The exporting producer claimed that the cost for
reflects his situation.
depreciation, building and insurance used in the calcu
lation of the normal value of one type was not the same
as the one used for the other types and the same figure
should apply to all types. The Commission verified the
claim and indeed found an error in the calculation.
However, contrary to the exporting producer’s claim
(11) The
exporting
producer
further
argued
that
the
rates
used
for selling, general and administrative expenses (SGA)
the error was found to be made in the calculation of
and profit margins of respectively 16 % and 8 % were
the normal value of the other types. A correction to
too high. The exporting producer argued that the SGA
the normal value for the other types was made
rate should not exceed 12,59 %, reflecting its own SGA
accordingly.
excluding inland freight costs.
(16) The
exporting
producer
also
claimed
that
the
normal
values for types other than those for which a specific
(12) It is recalled that as outlined in recitals 15 to 17 of the
normal value was established did not take fully into
provisional Regulation the exporting producer did not
account the actual product mix of the exporting
cooperate with the investigation and consequently did
producer. In this respect, the exporting producer
not provide data about its full SGA costs. Under these
reiterated his claim that a weighted average of the
circumstances and given the fact that no further
normal values found should be used for the other
information was provided on the company’s full SGA
types, thus reflecting the actual product mix of the
costs, it was decided to continue to rely on the
exporting producer. As mentioned in recital 10 above,
information available in the complaint. Furthermore, in
the Commission agreed to revise the calculation of the
the light of the information available and insofar as it
normal values for these other types in order to take into
could be verified, a SGA rate of 16 % was considered to
account of the actual product mix of the Thai producer
be reasonable. Therefore, the claim was rejected.
and, irrespective of the actual sales volumes for each
type, a normal value for small, medium and large RBM
was calculated. However, the Commission rejected the
argument that in addition a weighting factor based on
the exporter’s sales to the Union should be taken into
(13) The
exporting
producer
claimed
that
the
profit
level
of
consideration in the absence of substantiated reasons.
8 % used in the provisional calculation was too high and
instead, a profit level of 5 % should have been used. The
arguments put forward were, firstly, a profit level of 5 %
has been used for the target profit in the injury analysis
and, secondly, a profit level of 5 % would be in line with
(17) In
addition,
the
exporting
producer
claimed
that
the
previous investigations on the same product. On the first
Commission’s method of calculating NV on the basis
argument, the Commission noted that the determination
of the length of the ring binder mechanisms was
of a target profit for the Union industry and the profit
imprecise and incomplete and proposed a new method
level used for the determination of a normal value do not
for the calculation of the averages which would take into
follow the same logic and therefore, do not have to be
account their various lengths more accurately. As
the same. On the second argument, the Commission
explained in recital 16 above the Commission calculated
agreed that there were some grounds for using the
a normal value for types other than those for which a
same profit level as in previous investigations on the
specific normal value was established and calculated

---

EN
9.8.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
204/13
normal values reflecting small, medium and large RBM.
6. INJURY
The exporter’s calculation was found to be flawed and
result-oriented. Therefore, the claim was rejected.
6.1. Union consumption and imports from Thailand
(25) The
Thai
producer
and
several
importers
questioned
the
trends in Union consumption established in the provi
(18) Apart
from
the
changes
mentioned
above
and
in
the
sional Regulation. In particular, they argued that the
absence of any other comments, the content of recitals
consumption decreased to a higher extent than what
15 to 20 of the provisional Regulation concerning the
was provisionally established (by around 30 %). They
establishing of the normal value is hereby definitively
also asked for clarifications concerning the methodology
confirmed.
followed by the Commission to establish consumption,
because the RBM is included in a customs tariff heading
including other products.
4.2. Export price and comparison
(19) The
exporting
producer
claimed
that
the
currency
used
for the computation of transport costs in the dumping
(26) It
should
be
mentioned
that
although
these
interested
calculation was not the correct one. The Commission
parties contested the findings related to the consumption,
accepted this claim.
no supporting evidence or figures have been provided to
substantiate their arguments. They also did not point to
any methodological flaw.
(20) In the absence of any other comments, the content of
recitals 21 to 24 of the provisional Regulation
concerning the establishing of export prices and
comparing the export prices with the respective normal
(27) As
to
the
methodology,
it
should
be
recalled
that,
as
value is hereby definitively confirmed.
mentioned in recital 33 of the provisional Regulation,
the consumption was established on the basis of the
verified sales figures provided in the questionnaire’s
reply of the cooperating parties (the two Union
4.3. Dumping margin
producers and the Thai exporter for the periods 2008-
IP) and on the basis of Eurostat figures for the rest of the
(21) The
exporting
producer
claimed
that
the
calculation
of
imports. Given that RBM from other sources are subject
the dumping margin did not take into account the
to anti-dumping measures, imports (from all sources) are
specific normal value for two types. The claim was
registered under sub-headings codes in the customs tariff
accepted and corrected accordingly.
database (TARIC) which are very largely specific to the
product under investigation. These sub-headings were
used in order to ensure that only imports of the
(22) In the light of the above-mentioned changes in the calcu
product concerned were considered, despite a minor
lation of the normal value and the comparison, and after
update of the product definition in this investigation.
correction of the calculation error regarding export price
mentioned above, the amount of dumping finally
determined, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union
frontier price, duty unpaid, is as follows:
(28) Furthermore,
given
that
Eurostat
figures
are
expressed
in
kilograms, while the consumption has been calculated in
pieces, one importer requested clarifications as to the
methodology used to covert kilograms into pieces. It
Exporting producer Dumping
margin
should thus be clarified that a conversion factor of 50
gram/piece has been used, which is in line with previous
Thai Stationery Industry Co. Ltd,
16,3 %
investigations and was found to be reasonable, when
Bangkok, Thailand
compared to the information provided by the Thai
exporting producer. It should be also added that, if the
Commission had used exactly the average weight per
(23) Since
the
cooperating
exporting
producer
accounted
for
piece resulting from the information provided by the
all Thai exports to the Union of the product concerned,
Thai exporting producer, the imports from Thailand
it was considered that the residual dumping margin
would have shown during the overall injury investigation
should be set at the level of dumping margin found
period a steeper increase in terms of both absolute
for this cooperating exporting producer, i.e. 16,3 %.
volume (by 25 %, as compared to 19 % established in
the provisional Regulation) and market shares (from
11,8 % to 15,5 %, as compared to 12,0 % to 15,0 %
established in the provisional Regulation).
5. DEFINITION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY
(24) In the absence of any comments concerning the defi
nition of the Union industry, the findings set out in
recitals 28 to 32 of the provisional Regulation are
(29) One
importer
also
claimed
that
the
Thai
imports
actually
hereby confirmed.
decreased by 40 % during the injury investigation period,

---

L 204/14
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
9.8.2011
but this was based on the import value — and not on
7.2. Effects of other factors
the volume — for the totality of the customs code, thus
including products other than those under investigation.
(35) Some
interested
parties
contested
the
provisional
findings
This claim had to be rejected.
concerning the effect of other factors, and submitted that
alternately contraction in demand, competition between
Union producers, imports from India and self-inflicted
injury would be the main cause of injury.
(30) In view of the above, the findings in recitals 33 to 40 of
the provisional Regulation concerning the Union
consumption (which decreased by more than 15 %
between 2008 and the IP) and the imports from
(36) Concerning the contraction in demand, reference is made
Thailand, are hereby confirmed.
to recitals 25 to 30 above which confirm the trend of
the consumption established in the provisional Regu
lation. The allegations that the effects of the contraction
in demand have been underestimated should therefore be
rejected. Nevertheless, it should be recalled that the recital
6.2. Economic situation of the Union industry
67 of the provisional Regulation concluded that the
decrease in consumption indeed might have contributed
(31) One
importer
submitted
that
the
injury
analysis
was
to the material injury suffered by the Union industry,
biased because the poor financial situation of the
although this effect was considerably reinforced by the
Union industry should be seen in conjunction with the
effect caused by the dumped imports. However, the effect
situation of one of its related companies, which is
of the decrease in consumption was not such as to break
allegedly making profits in the RBM’s business. In this
the causal link between the dumped imports and the
respect it is noted that the injury analysis should only
injury found.
focus on the Union industry’ sales on the Union market
of the product concerned produced in the Union. Since,
as mentioned in recital 69 of the provisional Regulation,
the related company in question is not a producer in the
Union and is mostly trading products not originating in
(37) It was also argued by the Thai exporter that the injury
the Union, it should not be taken into consideration for
suffered by the Union industry was also caused by the
the purpose of the injury analysis.
competition between the Union producers. This is mainly
because the loss of the Union industry’s market share
coincided with the market share increase of the other
Union producer.
(32) Without prejudice to the above, it is nevertheless
underlined that the importer has provided no
information showing that the above-mentioned related
company would be in a good financial situation. To
(38) In
this
respect,
even
if
the
calculations
presented
by
the
the contrary, the figures obtained during the investigation
Thai exporter are not entirely correct, it is true that
show that also this company decreased significantly its
overall the market share of the second producer also
sales volume of RBM during the investigation period.
increased during the injury investigation period. It
should however be recalled that, as mentioned in the
recital 30 of the provisional Regulation, this producer
is importing a significant quantity of RBM from
Thailand. Interestingly, the year when this producer
(33) Account taken of the above and in the absence of other
managed to increase its sales of Union made products
comments in respect to the injury analysis, the recitals
and market shares it also significantly increased its sales
41 to 57 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
of RBM from Thailand. Actually, it even became a
confirmed, and it is concluded that the Union industry
significant importer of Thai RBM, by purchasing a
has suffered material injury within the meaning of
major part of the Thai exports during that year.
Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.
Therefore, even if indeed the second Union producer
managed to take over some market shares from the
Union industry, it is difficult not to conclude that this
company managed to do this because it also benefited
from the dumped imports of RBM from Thailand. It is
7. CAUSATION
recalled that this producer was excluded from the defi
nition of the Union industry because of his important
7.1. Effects of the dumped imports
import activities as compared to his own production.
(34) Even
though
some
interested
parties
contested
the
provi
sional findings regarding the effect of other factors (see
below), none of them contested the provisional
conclusion that dumped imports from Thailand caused
(39) Furthermore,
the
claim
already
addressed
in
recital
69
of
injury to the Union industry. The recitals 58 to 64 of the
the provisional Regulation that Indian imports also
provisional Regulation are thus hereby confirmed.
caused injury to the Union industry was reiterated

---

EN
9.8.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
204/15
by interested parties. This was based on the fact that
(44) No
comments
were
made
with
respect
to
the
recitals
79
India holds around 50 % share of the Union market,
to 90 of the provisional Regulation concerning the
i.e. three times more than Thailand, and that the corre
description of the market and the section related to the
sponding average prices decreased by 3 % between 2009
interest of the Union industry.
and IP, while undercutting Union prices by 24 %. It was
also underlined that a significant portion of the Indian
imports was purchased by a company related to the
Union industry.
8.1. Importers and traders
(45) It is firstly recalled that in the provisional Regulation it
(40) No
new
arguments
were
however
given
in
this
respect
was concluded that the imposition of measures could
and these claims were already addressed in the provi
only have a significant negative impact on the situation
sional Regulation. Even if the absolute level of Indian
of one importer, which also produces RBM in the Union.
imports was indeed overall higher than that of
This importer did not react to the imposition of the
Thailand, it was shown in the provisional Regulation
provisional measures.
that these imports developed differently: while Thai
imports increased overall during the injury investigation
period, both in absolute and relative terms, Indian
imports decreased (by almost 10 %) and market shares
also slightly diminished. In addition, the Indian average
(46) One
other
importer,
which
also
requested
a
hearing
price level was also higher than the Thai import price.
chaired by the Hearing Officer, mainly questioned the
Furthermore, even if a company related to the Union
calculation of the dumping margin, the injury analysis
industry is importing RBM from India, the investigation
and the calculation of the Union consumption. It did
established that the level of these imports has
however not raise any new comment regarding the
significantly decreased over the years as mentioned
Union interest analysis.
above in recital 32.
(41) Finally,
several
interested
parties
also
claimed
that
the
(47) A
third
importer,
representing
20
%
of
the
overall
Thai
complainant lost its customers because it became active
imports, requested a hearing during which it was
on the downstream market via its mother company, Ring
explained that, contrary to the information submitted
International Holding (RIH), and that sales of RBM to
previously during the investigation, it did not cease all
related companies should be considered carefully
its activities related to RBM — as mentioned in recital 92
because they would not be made at arm’s length. These
of the provisional Regulation — but has transferred them
claims have however been rejected because they were not
to another office. During the hearing, this importer
substantiated and the investigation showed that sales to
explained that its RBM-business is only complementary
related companies were negligible as compared to total
to its core one covering other products and did not
sales.
exclude importing RBM from Thailand even if measures
are imposed. However, because of the overhead costs of
its large distribution network, this will depend on the
level of the anti-dumping duties and on the possibility
7.3. Conclusion on causation
to increase the price to customers. Alternatively, this
importer would not suffer significant negative conse
(42) Based on the above, the provisional conclusions laid
quences from stopping the RBM-business given the
down in recitals 65 to 76 of the provisional Regulation
minor importance of this activity as compared to its
are hereby confirmed. Even if factors other than imports
overall business.
also had some impact on the situation of the Union
industry, it is concluded that dumped imports from
Thailand have caused material injury to the Union
industry, within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the
basic Regulation, based on an analysis which has
8.2. Users
properly distinguished and separated the effects of all
known factors from the injurious effects of the
(48) As
mentioned
in
recital
5
above,
the
questionnaire
reply
dumped imports.
of the only cooperating user was verified during the visit
at its premises after the imposition of the provisional
measures. This user is purchasing from a variety of
sources, including the Union, India and Thailand. It
8. UNION INTEREST
also used to import from China but changed its source
of supply since the imposition of anti-dumping duties.
(43) Two of the five importers that cooperated during the
investigation reacted to the disclosure of the provisional
findings and submitted comments in writing. One of
these importers requested to be heard as well as
another importer. The Commission also decided to
(49) Thai
imports
represent
around
10
%
of
its
total
purchases
carry out a visit at the premises of the sole user that
of RBM, and the company decided not to import Thai
participated to the investigation.
products since the imposition of the provisional

---

L 204/16
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
9.8.2011
measures. Even if so far the measures did not seem to
reduced to 6 %, since allegedly Indian imports are not
have significantly affected its economic situation, this
dumped and are 6 % higher than Thai imports. In this
company nevertheless deplored the limitation of its
respect, it is noted that the purpose of anti-dumping
sources of supply, and especially the fact that now it
duties is not to align prices to those of other sources
cannot rely always on short-term delivery of RBM.
but to eliminate the distorting effects of injurious
dumping.
(50) Interested
parties
reiterated
their
claim,
already
addressed
in the provisional Regulation, that the imposition of
(55) In
view of the conclusions reached with regard to
measures would lead to limited sources of supply on
dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, and in
the Union market. It is thus worth restating that
accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, a
indeed the investigation showed that the Union market
definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed at the
is characterised by a limited number of players: there is
level of the lowest of the dumping and injury margins
one producer in India, one in Thailand, two in the Union
found, in accordance with the lesser duty rule. In this
and some in China. The purpose of anti-dumping
case, the duty rate should accordingly be set at the level
measures is to restore fair competition on the Union
of the dumping found. This was calculated at 16,3 %
market and not to prevent imports. This may indeed
having fallen significantly since the provisional stage.
result in a reduction of the level of imports, while
measures offset the trade distorting nature of these
imports. This is however, as such, not a sufficient
reason to question the imposition of measures against
(56) On the basis of the above, the rate of the definitive anti-
dumped imports. It could even be argued that fair
dumping duty for the cooperating exporter is 16,3 %.
competition should be guaranteed on the Union
market to ensure the continued existence of all sources
of supply in the long term.
10. DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL
DUTY
(57) In view of the magnitude of the dumping margin found
(51) It
is
expected
that
with
a
level
of
the
definitive
duty,
and given the level of the injury caused to the Union
which is lower than the provisional one, Thai imports
industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts
could still enter the Union market, while the investi
secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty
gation has shown that there are also other sources of
imposed by the provisional Regulation should be
supply, even if in limited number.
definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the
duty definitively imposed by this Regulation. Since the
definitive duty is lower than the provisional duty, the
amounts secured in excess of the definitive duty rate
should be released,
8.3. Conclusion on the Union interest
(52) In the light of the above, and in the absence of any other
comments, recitals 77 to 110 of the provisional Regu
lation are hereby confirmed and it is concluded that
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
overall, based on the information available concerning
the Union interest, there are no compelling reasons
against the imposition of definitive measures against
imports of RBM originating in Thailand.
Article 1
1. A
definitive
anti-dumping
duty
is
hereby
imposed
on
certain ring binder mechanisms, currently falling within CN
code
ex 8305 10 00
(TARIC
codes
8305 10 00 11,
9. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
8305 10 00 13,
8305 10 00 19,
8305 10 00 21,
8305 10 00 23,
8305 10 00 29,
8305 10 00 34,
9.1. Injury elimination level
8305 10 00 35 and 8305 10 00 36) originating in Thailand.
For the purpose of this Regulation, ring binder mechanisms
(53) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
as
to
the
injury
elim
shall consist of at least two steel sheets or wires with at least
ination level, recitals 111 to 114 of the provisional Regu
four half-rings made of steel wire fixed on them and which are
lation are hereby confirmed.
kept together by a steel cover. They can be opened either by
pulling the half rings or with a small steel trigger mechanism
fixed to the ring binder mechanism.
9.2. Definitive measures
(54) With respect to the amount of duty necessary to remove
2. The
rate
of
the
definitive
anti-dumping
duty
applicable
to
the effects of the injurious dumping, it has been
the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products
commented that the anti-dumping duty should be
described in paragraph 1 shall be 16,3 %.

---

EN
9.8.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
204/17
3. Unless
otherwise
specified,
the
provisions
in
force Article 1 of this Regulation. The amounts secured in excess of
concerning customs duties shall apply.
the rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty shall be released.
Article 2
Article 3
Amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty
pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 118/2011 shall be definitively
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its
collected at the rate of the definitive duty imposed pursuant to
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, 5 August 2011.
For the Council
The President
M. DOWGIELEWICZ

---