HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
25.6.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
166/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 616/2011
of 21 June 2011
terminating the expiry review and ‘the new exporter’ review of the anti-dumping measures
concerning imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People’s Republic of China
THE COUNCIL OF THE OPEAN UNION,
PRC, the Commission received on 9 July 2010 a request
for review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regu
lation. The request was lodged by the Magnesia Bricks
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Production Defence Coalition (‘MBPDC’) (‘the applicant’)
Union,
on behalf of producers representing a major proportion,
in this case more than 25 %, of the total Union
production of certain magnesia bricks.
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 )
(3) The
request
contained
prima
facie
evidence
of
the
like
(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9 and
lihood of continuation of dumping and recurrence of
Article 11(2), (4), (5) and (6) thereof,
injury which was considered sufficient to justify the
initiation of an expiry review proceeding. The applicant
also claimed that an Austrian-based company, RHI AG
After consulting the Advisory Committee,
(‘RHI’), should be excluded from the definition of the
Union industry on the grounds that it had shifted its
core business activities to the PRC, where it has a
Whereas:
related company producing the product concerned and
increased its business activities relating to the product
concerned in the PRC.
1. PROCEDURE
1.1. Measures in force
1.3. Initiation of the expiry review
(1) In
October
2005,
pursuant
to
Regulation
(EC)
No
1659/2005 ( 2 ), the Council imposed definitive anti-
(4) On
8
October
2010
the
Commission,
after
consultation
dumping duties ranging from 2,7 % to 39,9 % on
of the Advisory Committee, announced, by a notice
imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the
published in the Official Journal of the European Union
People’s Republic of China (‘the PRC’). Following two
(‘the notice of initiation’) ( 6 ), the initiation of an expiry
interim reviews requested by Chinese exporting
review proceeding concerning imports into the Union of
producers, the Regulation was amended in 2009 by
certain magnesia bricks originating in the PRC.
Council Regulations (EC) No 825/2009 ( 3 ) and (EC)
No 826/2009 ( 4 ). Following the reviews, the anti-
dumping duties imposed by Regulation (EC)
No 1659/2005 currently range from 0 % to 39,9 %.
1.4. Investigation period of the expiry review
(5)
In view of the apparent large number of parties involved
in the proceeding, the Commission announced in the
1.2. Request for an expiry review
notice of initiation that it may apply sampling in
accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In
(2) Following the publication of a notice of impending
order to enable it to decide whether sampling was
expiry ( 5 ) of the anti-dumping measures in force on
necessary and, if so, to select a sample, exporting
imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the
producers, importers and Union producers were
required to provide certain information for the period
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 (‘the investigation period’
( 2 ) OJ L 267, 12.10.2005, p. 1.
or ‘IP’).
( 3 ) OJ L 240, 11.9.2009, p. 1.
( 4 ) OJ L 240, 11.9.2009, p. 7.
( 5 ) OJ C 111, 30.4.2010, p. 29.
( 6 ) OJ C 272, 8.10.2010, p. 5.

---

L 166/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
25.6.2011
2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
determine their support or opposition to the investi
gation. One of the companies that replied, RHI AG,
(6) The
product
concerned
is
chemically
bonded,
unfired
expressed its opposition to the expiry review prior to
magnesia bricks, whose magnesia component contains
initiation.
at least 80 % MgO, whether or not containing magnesite,
currently falling within CN codes ex 6815 91 00 and
ex 6815 99 00.
(13) Following
initiation,
RHI
claimed
that
the
facts
presented
by the applicant in the request for review, especially in
regard to RHI’s production volume, were not accurate
and that, on the contrary, RHI should be included in
(7) The
like
product
is
defined
as
chemically
bonded,
unfired
magnesia bricks, whose magnesia component contains at
the definition of the Union industry as had been done
least 80 % MgO, whether or not containing magnesite,
in the original proceeding in 2005. It consequently
produced and sold in the Union market.
disputed the definition of the Union industry which

had led to the initiation of the proceeding on the
grounds that the requirements of Article 5(4) of the
basic Regulation were not met, since it is the largest
Union producer, accounting for more than 50 % of
(8) Magnesia
bricks
are
manufactured
using
magnesite
total Union production, and is opposed to the initiation.
minerals as the main raw material. They are normally
produced to standard chemical specifications which are
then altered to fit the demands of the end-user. Magnesia
bricks are normally used in steel production as a lining
4. INVESTIGATION
for the vessels in which the steel is melted.
(14) As
mentioned in
recital
3
above,
the
applicant
had
considered that RHI AG should be excluded from the
definition of the Union industry on the grounds that it
3.
had shifted its core business activities to the PRC. In view
PARTIES CONCERNED BY THE INVESTIGATION
of this and the fact that RHI AG expressed opposition to
(9) The
Commission
officially
advised
the
applicant,
other
the review, the Commission asked RHI to provide addi
known producers in the Union, the known exporting
tional information in order to examine whether or not it
producers in the PRC, the representatives of the
should be included in the definition of the Union
exporting country concerned and known importers and
industry. The requested information concerned the
users of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties
company’s business activities both in the EU and in the
were given the opportunity to make their views known
PRC and included data on its production capacity,
in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit
production volumes, sales value and volumes in and
set out in the notice of initiation. All interested parties
outside the EU and the PRC and imports value and
who so requested and showed that there were particular
volume of the product concerned in the Union market.
reasons why they should be heard were granted a
The company provided the additional information and an
hearing.
on-spot verification visit took place at the company’s
headquarters in Vienna.
(10) In view of the large number of parties involved sampling
(15) In
the
original
investigation
initiated
in
July
2004,
RHI
was envisaged in the notice of initiation for the Chinese
was one of the complainant Union producers. At that
exporting producers, unrelated Union importers and
time RHI was also importing the product concerned
Union producers. Of the seventy-eight exporting
from its related company in the PRC and it was
producers contacted at initiation only four provided the
examined whether the company should be excluded
information for the selection of the sample requested in
from the definition of the Union industry pursuant to
the notice of initiation.
Article 4(1)(a) of the basic Regulation.
(16) It is recalled that the assessment of RHI’s situation was
(11) With regard to Union producers, a total of ten
companies, including the producers on behalf of whom
made in Commission Regulation (EC) No 552/2005 of
MBPDC requested the review, submitted the requested
11 April 2005 imposing a provisional duty on imports
information. The Union producers requesting the
of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People’s
review are heavily dependent on the supply of a major
Republic of China ( 1 ) and confirmed by Regulation (EC)
raw material from the PRC and have requested confi
No 1659/2005. For the purpose of the assessment, the
dential treatment for their company names in view of
following criteria were examined:
possible retaliatory action.
— the location of the company’s headquarters, research
and development (R & D) centre and main
(12) The Commission services had contacted all Union
production sites,
producers of magnesia bricks prior to initiation to
obtain information on their production levels and to
( 1 ) OJ L 93, 12.4.2005, p. 6.

---

EN
25.6.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
166/3
— the volume/value of the product concerned imported
product concerned. This company is a joint venture with
from the PRC compared to the total sales volume and
a Chinese company and started production in 1997. It
value,
has only one plant. Although the plant’s production
capacity increased substantially during the period from
2005 to the end of the investigation period, it still does
— the impact the imported sales had on the company’s
not represent a major proportion of the RHI’s total
total Union sales, in particular by comparing the
production capacity (EU and Chinese plants combined).
profitability of RHI’s sales in the EU of the
imported product concerned with the profitability
rates of the cooperating Union producers.
(21) With
regard
to the imports
volume
of the product
concerned, following the imposition of the measures in
(17) At that time it was found that the company’s core
2005, the company imported only one small shipment
business was situated in the Union as regards the
from its related company in the PRC in the investigation
product concerned (its headquarters, R & D centre and
period, as it is subject to the highest anti-dumping duty
biggest production sites were all located in the Union).
rate of 39,9 %.
Moreover, the vast majority of RHI’s sales on the Union
market were produced in the Union and only a minor
part was produced in the PRC (5 % of its total sales
volume in the Union) as the production of the related
(22) RHI
provided
its
sales
value
and
volume
for
the
like
company in the PRC was mainly aimed at the fast-
product produced in the Union and for the product
growing Asian market. In addition, it was found that
concerned produced in the PRC. The company demon
these imports were resold at prices comparable to
strated that the majority of the sales of its related
those of the Union industry and therefore the company
company in the PRC during the investigation period
was not enjoying substantial beneficial effects, in terms of
were for export to countries other than the EU, with
profitability, by reselling the imported product. Finally, it
the remainder being sold on the Chinese market.
was explicitly mentioned that RHI’s Union production
company was a separate legal entity from its Chinese
production company. It was found that, although RHI
AG was a global group with a production site in the
(23) Concerning the impact the sales of the imported product
PRC constituting a separate legal entity, it still
concerned had on the company’s total Union sales, the
produced the vast majority of its magnesia bricks,
volume of these imports compared to the company’s
which were subsequently sold on the Union market, at
total sales volume in the Union market was insignificant
its Union production sites. On these grounds it was
and thus the impact on the company’s sales negligible.
concluded that RHI AG, which supported the imposition
of measures at that time, formed part of the Union
industry.
(24) Based on the data verified on-spot it is concluded that
RHI should not be excluded from the definition of the
(18) During the on-spot verification in the course of the
Union industry. The company’s situation has not
current proceeding, it was found that the company’s
changed substantially since the original investigation,
core business was still situated in the Union. The
when it was found that the three criteria were met and
company’s headquarters, shareholders and R & D centre
concluded that the company was part of the Union
were located in the Union. The company has five plants
industry.
in the Union producing the product concerned and
during the period 2005 to 30 June 2010, the end of
the investigation period, the production capacity in
these plants increased. The figures provided by RHI
(25) The
findings
confirm
that
the
company
still
has
its
core
concerning its production capacity in the Union of the
business activities (headquarters, R & D centre and main
like product and the production volumes per plant in the
production sites) in the EU. The increase in the
investigation period were verified and found to be
production capacity of the plant in the PRC in the
correct.
period 2005 to the end of the investigation period
cannot be considered as a shift of the company’s core
activities to the PRC. Therefore the applicant’s argument
(19) The
company
also
continued
to
invest
in
its
EU
plants
that RHI should be excluded on the basis that it has a
and, for the period 2007 to the end of the investigation
related company in the PRC producing the product
period, the investments relating to the like product repre
concerned and increasing business activities in the PRC
sented a significant portion of the company’s total
is rejected.
investments in the EU.
(20) RHI
has
several
related
companies
in
the
PRC
involved
in
(26) The information supplied by the applicant
did not
the production and trading of refractory products
accurately reflect the situation of RHI as a Union
including magnesia bricks of which RHI Refractories
producer, in particular with regard to its production
Liaoning Co. Ltd, a separate legal entity, produces the
volume and production capacity in the Union, and its

---

L 166/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
25.6.2011
production capacity in the PRC. Thus, by including RHI’s
(32) In the view of the circumstances described above in
production volume in the total Union production figure
particular in recital 21, the Commission will monitor
the applicant’s output constitutes less than 50 % of the
the export and import flows of the product concerned
total Union production. Furthermore, as explained above,
as well as the relevant CN Codes. Should the flows
(i) RHI should be considered as part of the Union
appear to change, the Commission will give
industry within the meaning of Article 4 of the basic
consideration to the action to be taken.
Regulation; (ii) RHI produces over 50 % of total Union
production within the meaning of Article 5(4), second
sentence, of the basic Regulation; and (iii) RHI is opposed
to the expiry review. Therefore, the proceeding should be
6. TERMINATION OF THE ‘NEW EXPORTER’ REVIEW
terminated.
(33) On
27
May
2010
the
Commission
received
an
appli
cation for a ‘new exporter’ review pursuant to
Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation. The application
was lodged by TRL China Ltd (‘TRL’), an exporting
5. TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING
producer in the PRC.
(27) In the light of the above, it is considered that the present
proceeding should be terminated in accordance with
Article 9 and Article 11(2), (5) and (6) of the basic
(34) TRL
claimed
that
it
operated
under
market
economy
Regulation.
conditions as defined in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regu
lation or alternatively claimed individual treatment in
conformity with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. It
further claimed that it did not export the product
(28) The
applicant
was
informed
accordingly
and
was
given
concerned to the Union during the period of investi
the opportunity to comment. The applicant strongly
gation on which the anti-dumping measures were
contested the conclusions of the Commission and
based, i.e. the period from 1 April 2003 to 31 March
expressed doubts that RHI’s production during the inves
2004 (‘the original investigation period’) and that it was
tigation period exceeded the production of the remaining
not related to any of the exporting producers of the
Union producers supporting the complaint. In particular
product which are subject to the anti-dumping
the applicant provided various press releases concerning
measures mentioned above in recital 1.
RHI’s activities to substantiate its claims that the
company no longer views the production in the Union
as its core business and that there is a clear shift in the
group’s strategy as it announced massive extensions of its
(35) TRL further claimed that it had begun exporting the
production capacities in the PRC. However, it was found
product concerned to the Union after the end of the
that such press releases refer to the company’s general
original investigation period.
overall business activities and do not relate specifically to
the product investigated. The applicant did not provide
any other evidence of any shift in RHI’s core activities
(36) On
28
September
2010
the
Commission,
after
consul
with regard to the period from 2005 to the end of the
tation of the Advisory Committee, announced, by Regu
investigation period that would lead to the conclusion
lation (EU) No 850/2010 ( 1 ), the initiation of a ‘new
that RHI should be excluded from the definition of the
exporter’ review of Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005, the
Union industry.
repeal of the duty with regard to imports from TRL and
the subjection of these imports to registration.
(29) It is therefore considered that the expiry review
proceeding concerning imports into the Union of
(37) The
investigation
period
for
the
‘new
exporter’
review
certain magnesia bricks originating in the PRC should
was from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010.
be terminated.
(38) In
view
of
the
termination
of
the
expiry
review
and
given
the fact that TRL did not import the product concerned
(30) Due
to
the
precise
circumstances
explained
in
recital
26
between the date of the entry into force of Regulation
above, the definitive anti-dumping duties paid or entered
(EU) No 850/2010 and the date of expiry of the anti-
in the accounts pursuant to Regulation (EC)
dumping measures (13 October 2010), it is considered
No 1659/2005 on imports of certain magnesia bricks
that the ‘new exporter’ review concerning imports into
originating in the People’s Republic of China released
the Union of certain magnesia bricks originating in the
for free circulation as from 14 October 2010, the date
PRC should therefore also be terminated.
of expiry of the anti-dumping measures, should excep
tionally be repaid or remitted.
(39) Interested
parties
were
given
the
opportunity
to
make
their views known and to request a hearing within the
(31) Repayment
or
remission
must
be
requested
from
national
time limit set out in the notice of initiation,
customs authorities in accordance with applicable
customs legislation.
( 1 ) OJ L 253, 28.9.2010, p. 42.

---

EN
25.6.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
166/5
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Repayment and remission shall be requested from national
customs authorities in accordance with applicable customs legis
lation.
Article 1
The anti-dumping measures concerning imports of chemically
Article 3
bonded, unfired magnesia bricks, whose magnesia component
contains at least 80 % MgO, whether or not containing
The ‘new exporter’ review initiated by Regulation
magnesite, originating in the People’s Republic of China,
(EU) No 850/2010 is hereby terminated.
currently falling within CN codes ex
6815
91
00 and
ex 6815 99 00, are hereby repealed and the proceeding
concerning these imports is terminated.
Article 4
The customs authorities are hereby directed to cease the regis
tration of imports carried out pursuant to Article 3 of Regu
Article 2
lation (EU) No 850/2010.
The definitive anti-dumping duties paid or entered in the
accounts pursuant to Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC)
Article 5
No 1659/2005 on imports of certain magnesia bricks orig
inating in the People’s Republic of China released for free circu
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its
lation as from 14 October 2010 shall be repaid or remitted.
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, 21 June 2011.
For the Council
The President
FAZEKAS S.

---