HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"L 84/36
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
23.3.2012
DECISIONS
COMMISSION DECISION
of 22 March 2012
terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and
parts thereof originating in India
(2012/163/EU)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
producers, known importers, users known to be
concerned, and the Indian authorities of the initiation
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
of the proceeding. Interested parties were given an
Union,
opportunity to make their views known in writing and
to request a hearing within the time limit set in the
notice of initiation.
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
from countries not members of the European Community ( 1 )
(the ‘basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9 thereof,
(5) All
interested
parties,
who
so
requested
and
showed
that
there were particular reasons why they should be heard,
were granted a hearing.
After consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
1.2.1. Sampling for exporting producers in India
1. PROCEDURE
(6) In view of the apparent large number of exporting
producers in India, sampling was provided for in the
1.1. Initiation
notice of initiation for the determination of dumping,
in accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation.
(1) On
13
May
2011,
the
European
Commission
(‘the
Commission’) announced, by a notice published in the
Official Journal of the European Union ( 2 ) (‘notice of initi
(7) In
order
to
enable
the
Commission
to
decide
whether
ation’), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with
sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a
regard to imports into the Union of certain stainless steel
sample, exporting producers in India were requested to
fasteners and parts thereof originating in India (‘the
make themselves known within 15 days from the date of
product concerned’).
the initiation of the investigation and to provide basic
information on their export and domestic sales, their
(2) On
the
same
day,
the
Commission
announced
by
a
precise activities with regard to the production and
notice published in the Official Journal of the European
sales of the product concerned and the names and
Union ( 3 ), the initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding
activities of all their related companies involved in the
with regard to imports into the Union of certain
production and sales of the product concerned during
stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in
the period from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 (‘in
India and commenced a separate investigation.
vestigation period’ or ‘IP’).
(3) The
anti-dumping
proceeding
was
initiated
following
a
complaint lodged on 31 March 2011 by the European
(8) In
total,
five
exporting
producers,
including
a
group
of
Industrial Fasteners Institute EiFi (‘the complainant’) on
related companies in India, provided the requested
behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of the
information and agreed to be included in the sample
total Union production of certain stainless steel fasteners
within the deadline set in the notice of initiation. These
and parts thereof. The complaint contained prima facie
cooperating companies reported exports of the product
evidence of dumping of the said product and of
concerned to the Union during the investigation period.
material injury resulting thereof, which was considered
The comparison between Eurostat import data and the
sufficient to justify the initiation of an investigation.
volume of exports to the Union of the product
concerned reported for the investigation period by the
1.2. Parties concerned by the proceeding
five cooperating companies revealed that the cooperation

of Indian exporting producers was close to 100 %. Thus,
(4) The
Commission
officially
advised
the
complainant,
other
the sample was chosen on the basis of the information
known Union producers, the known exporting
submitted by these five exporting producers.
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
( 2 ) OJ C 142, 13.5.2011, p. 30.
(9) In
accordance
with
Article
17(1)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
( 3 ) OJ C 142, 13.5.2011, p. 36.
a sample was selected based on the largest representative

---

EN
23.3.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
84/37
volume of exports of the product concerned to the
(15) Subsequently
one
of
the
five
sampled
Union
producers
Union which could reasonably be investigated within
withdrew its cooperation. The remaining four sampled
the time available. On the basis of the information
companies represented 31 % of the total estimated
received from the exporting producers, the Commission
Union production during the IP. Hence the sample was
selected a sample of three exporting producers having the
considered to be representative of the Union industry.
largest volume of exports to the Union. Based on the
sampling information, the selected companies or groups
1.2.5. Sampling of unrelated importers
accounted for 99 % of the total volume of exports to the
Union of the product concerned in the IP reported by the
(16) In
view
of
the
potentially
large
number
of
importers
cooperating exporting producers. It was therefore
involved in the proceeding, sampling was envisaged for
considered that such a sample would allow to limiting
importers in the notice of initiation in accordance with
the investigation to a reasonable number of exporting
Article 17 of the basic Regulation. Two importers
producers which could be investigated within the time
provided the requested information and agreed to be
available while ensuring a high level of representa
included in the sample within the deadline set in the
tiveness.
notice of initiation. Given the low number of importers
who made themselves known, it was decided not to
apply sampling.
1.2.2. Selection of the sample of cooperating exporting
producers in India
1.3. Questionnaire replies and verifications
(10) In
accordance
with
Article
17(1)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
(17) The
Commission
sent
questionnaires
to
all
parties
known
the parties concerned and the Indian authorities were
to be concerned and to all other parties that made them
consulted on the selection of the sample. The two non-
selves known within the deadline set out in the notice of
sampled exporting producers insisted to be also included
initiation. Questionnaires were thus sent to the sampled
in the sample. However, in view of the representativity of
exporting producers in India, the sampled Union
the proposed sample, as mentioned in recital (8) above, it
producers, the cooperating importers in the Union and
was concluded that it was not necessary to amend or
to all users known to be concerned by the investigation.
enlarge the sample.
(18) Replies were received from the sampled exporting
producers and four sampled Union producers. None of
1.2.3. Individual examination of companies not selected in the
the importers or users replied to the questionnaire.
sample
(11) Two
co-operating
exporting
producers,
which
were
not
(19) The
Commission
sought
and
verified
all
the
information
included in the sample requested individual examination
provided by interested parties and deemed necessary for
and replied to the anti-dumping questionnaire within the
the determination of dumping, resulting injury and
time limit.
Union interest.
(20) One
party
claimed
that
one
of
the
exporting
producers
(12) Given
the conclusion that the present anti-dumping
made too many claims for confidentiality and did not
proceeding should be terminated for the reasons
provide a sufficiently meaningful public version of its
mentioned further below, the requests for individual
questionnaire response. Hence, the information
examination were not further considered.
submitted by this company should not be taken into
consideration and it should be treated as a non-
cooperative party in the investigation.
1.2.4. Sampling of Union producers
(21) The non-confidential version of the reply of this
(13) In view of the apparent large number of Union
exporting producer however, consisting of an initial
producers, sampling was provided for in the Notice of
reply and a completed version based on a deficiency
initiation for the determination of injury, in accordance
letter, has once more been assessed and found to be
with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.
sufficiently complete to qualify as a meaningful public
reply. This claim was therefore rejected.
(14) In the Notice of initiation the Commission announced
that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union
(22) Verification
visits
were
carried
out
at
the
premises
of
the
producers. This sample consisted of five companies, out
following parties:
of the 15 Union producers that were known prior to the
initiation of the investigation, selected on the basis of
Producers in the Union:
their sales volume, size and geographic location in the
Union. They represented 37 % of the total estimated
— Inox Viti di Cattinori Bruno & C.s.n.c., Grumello del
Union production during the IP. Interested parties were
Monte, Italy;
invited to consult the file and to comment on the appro
priateness of this choice within 15 days of the date of
publication of the Notice of initiation. No interested
— Bontempi Vibo S.p.A., Rodengo Saiano, Italy;
party opposed to the proposed sample composed of
five companies.
— Ugivis S.A., Belley, France

---

L 84/38
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
23.3.2012
Exporting producers in India:
market by the exporting producers, which were identical
or directly comparable to the types sold for export to the
Union.
— Viraj Profiles Limited, Boisar, Dist. Thane, Maha

rashtra
(29) Domestic sales of a particular product type were
— Agarwal Fastners Pvt. Ltd., Vasai (East), Dist. Thane,
considered as sufficiently representative when the
Maharashtra
volume of that product type sold on the domestic
market to independent customers during the IP repre
sented 5 % or more of the total volume of the
— Raajratna Ventures Ltd., Ahmedabad, Gujarat
comparable product type sold for export to the Union.
1.4. Investigation period
(30) The
Commission subsequently
examined
whether
the
(23) The
investigation
of
dumping
and
injury
covered
the
domestic sales of the companies concerned could be
period from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011. The exam
considered as being made in the ordinary course of
ination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury
trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.
covered the period from January 2008 to the end of
This was done by establishing for each product type
the IP (‘period considered’).
the proportion of profitable sales to independent
customers on the domestic market during the investi
gation period.
2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
2.1. Product concerned
(31) Where the sales volume of a product type, sold at a net
sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of
(24) The
product
concerned
is
stainless
steel
fasteners
and
production, represented more than 80 % of the total
parts thereof (‘SSF’) originating in India, currently
sales volume of that type, and where the weighted
falling within CN codes 7318 12 10, 7318 14 10,
average price of that type was equal to or above the
7318 15 30, 7318 15 51, 7318 15 61 and 7318 15 70.
cost of production, normal value was based on the
actual domestic price. This price was calculated as a
2.2. Like product
weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of
that type made during the IP, irrespective of whether
(25) The product concerned and the product produced and
these sales were profitable or not.
sold on the domestic market of India as well as the
product produced and sold on the Union market by
the Union industry were found to have the same basic
(32) Where the volume of profitable sales of a product type
physical, chemical and technical characteristics as well as
represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that
the same basic uses. They were therefore considered to
type, or where the weighted average price of that type
be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic
was below the cost of production, normal value was
Regulation.
based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a
weighted average of profitable sales of that type only.
3. DUMPING
(33) For
product
types
not
sold
in
representative
quantities
on
3.1. Normal value
the domestic market, normal value had to be constructed
on the basis of Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. To
(26) For
the
determination
of
normal
value
in
accordance
this end, the selling, general and administrative (‘SG&A’)
with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the
expenses and a reasonable profit margin were added to
Commission first established whether the domestic sales
the exporter's own average cost of manufacturing per
of the like product of the sampled Indian exporting
product type during the IP. In accordance with
producers to independent customers were made in repre
Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation, the percentage for
sentative volumes, i.e. whether the total volume of such
SG&A and profit margin were based on the weighted
sales represented at least 5 % of their total export sales
average SG&A and profit margin of sales of each
volume to the Union during the IP.
product type in the ordinary course of trade of the
respective exporting producer.
(27) In
the
case
of
one
sampled
exporting
producer
it
was
found that it had no representative sales of the like
product on the domestic market. For this exporting
3.1.2. Sampled cooperating exporting producer without overall
producer, normal value had to be constructed on the
representative domestic sales volume
basis of Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.
(34) For
the
cooperating
exporting
producer
without
repre
sentative domestic sales, normal value was constructed
3.1.1. Sampled cooperating exporting producers with overall
in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation
representative domestic sales volume
by adding to the company's own manufacturing costs for
the like product the SG&A expenses and a reasonable
(28) For
the
sampled
exporting
producers
with
overall
repre
profit margin per product type during the IP. In
sentative domestic sales, the Commission subsequently
accordance with Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation,
identified those product types sold on the domestic
the percentage for SG&A and profit margin were based

---

EN
23.3.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
84/39
on the weighted average SG&A and profit margin of
25 % between the normal value established for the
sales of each product type in the ordinary course of
exporting producers in the sample found to be
trade of the exporting producer.
dumping and the company not found to be dumping.
The complainant argued that such a difference cannot
exist on a competitive market and is not realistic for
3.2. Export price
the stainless steel fasteners industry. Moreover, the
complainant alleged that the exporting producer not
(35) Export
sales
prices
were
established
on
the
basis
of
the
found to be dumping procured stainless steel scrap
prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned
from related companies in the Union and that as a
in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.
consequence the purchase prices of this raw material
were not reliable for the determination of the cost of
production.
3.3. Comparison
(36) The
comparison
between
normal
value
and
export
price
was made on an ex-works basis.
(43) The
normal
value
for
the
cooperating
exporter
not
found
to be dumping has been based on its cost of production
per product type which is lower than for the other
sampled exporting producers. This results mainly from
(37) For
the
purpose
of
ensuring
a
fair
comparison
between
the fact that the former company produces stainless steel
the normal value and the export price, due allowance in
itself from stainless steel scrap, and is therefore fully
the form of adjustments was made for differences
integrated and benefits from economies of scale, while
affecting prices and price comparability in accordance
the latter companies purchase stainless steel wire rod, the
with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.
main raw material for production of stainless steel
fasteners, in the open market, including from the
cooperating exporter not found to be dumping.
(38) On
this
basis,
allowances
for
transport,
ocean
freight
and
insurance costs, handling loading and ancillary costs,
packing costs, credit costs, discounts not mentioned on
the invoice and commissions have been made where
(44) The normal value for the cooperating exporting
applicable and justified.
producers found to be dumping has been mostly
determined based on the domestic sales prices per
product type. There is only limited competition on
3.4. Dumping margins
India's domestic market and the cooperating exporter
not found to be dumping only sold unrepresentative
3.4.1. For the sampled cooperating exporting producers
quantities during the IP domestically.
(39) For the sampled companies, the weighted average normal
value of each type of the product concerned exported to
the Union was compared with the weighted average
(45) With
regard
to
the
procurement
of
stainless
steel
scrap
export price of the corresponding type of the product
by the exporting producer not found to be dumping, the
concerned, as provided for in Article 2(11) and (12) of
investigation showed that this company obtained scrap
the basic Regulation.
from both related and unrelated suppliers, the latter
representing more than 70 % of the quantities obtained.
The purchase price levels for both types of procurement
(40) On this basis of the above methodology the dumping
were comparable, also when taking the type of scrap
margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union
grade into account.
frontier price, duty unpaid, are the following:
(46) As
a
consequence,
the
normal
value
determination
of
the
Company Dumping
margin
sampled exporting producers is confirmed and the claims
made by the complainant have been rejected.
Viraj Profiles Ltd. 0
%
Agarwal Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. 37,6
%
Raajratna Ventures Ltd. 12,0
%
3.4.2. For the other cooperating exporting producers
(47) The weighted average dumping margin of the
cooperating exporting producers not included in the
(41) However,
it
should
be
noted
that
the
Indian
exporting
sample was calculated in accordance with the provisions
producer, for which no dumping was found, represented
of Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the
87 % of Indian exports to the Union.
margins established for the sampled exporting producers
who were found to be dumping. On this basis, the
dumping margin calculated for the cooperating
(42) Based
on
its
analysis
of
the
Commission's
disclosure
companies not included in the sample was set at
document, the complainant calculated a difference of
24,6 % of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid.

---

L 84/40
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
23.3.2012
(48) One cooperating Indian exporting producer, after
Subsequently, as explained in recital (15) above, one
disclosure of the Commission's intention to terminate
company decided not to cooperate in the investigation.
the proceeding, insisted that its request for individual
The remaining cooperating sampled companies repre
examination should be accepted, arguing that the
sented around 32 % of the total estimated Union
dumping margin disclosed for cooperating exporting
production during the IP and were deemed to be repre
producers not included in the sample did not reflect its
sentative of the Union industry.
situation.
4.2. Union industry
(49) The
request
for
individual
examination
has
not
been
assessed by the Commission since in case of termination
(55) All
known
Union
producers
referred
to
in
recital
(52)
the margin determination ceases to be an issue.
above are deemed to constitute the Union industry
within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of
the basic Regulation and will hereinafter be referred to as
3.4.3. For the non-cooperating exporting producers
the ‘Union industry’
(50) With regard to all other exporters in India, the
Commission first established the level of cooperation. A
5. INJURY
comparison was made between the total export quan
tities indicated in the sampling replies received from all
5.1. Preliminary remarks
cooperating exporting producers and the total imports
from India as derived from Eurostat statistics. The
(56) The
relevant
Eurostat
import
statistics,
together
with
data
percentage of cooperation found was 97 %. On this
provided in the complaint and data collected from Union
basis, the level of cooperation was deemed to be high.
producers before and after the initiation of the investi
It was considered appropriate to set the dumping margin
gation, including the verified questionnaire responses of
for the non-cooperating exporting producers at the level
the sampled Union producers were used also in the
corresponding to the average dumping margin estab
evaluation of the relevant injury factors.
lished for the sampled cooperating exporting producers.
Indeed information available suggests that the average
export prices of the non-cooperating Indian exporters
(57) The
injury
analysis
with
regard
to
macroeconomic
data,
in the IP were in line with those found for the
such as production capacity, capacity utilization, sales
cooperating exporting producers. In addition there are
volume, market share, growth, employment and produc
no indications available that would point to different
tivity is based on the data of the Union industry as a
normal values for the non-cooperating exporting
whole.
producers.
(58) The
injury
analysis
with
regard
to
microeconomic
data
(51) On
this
basis,
the
country-wide
level
of
dumping
was
such as transaction prices, profitability, cash flow,
established at 24,6 % of the CIF Union frontier price,
investment and return on investment, ability to raise
duty unpaid.
capital, stocks, and wages, is based on the data of the
sampled Union producers.
4. UNION INDUSTRY
4.1. Union production
(59) The four sampled Union producers were also sampled in
the expiry review of the anti-dumping measures
(52) All
available
information
concerning
Union
producers,
applicable to imports of SSF originating in China and
including information provided in the complaint, data
Taiwan, concluded on 7 January 2012 ( 1 ). In that
collected from Union producers before and after the
review one other company, which was not sampled in
initiation of the investigation, and the verified ques
the present investigation, was included in the sample.
tionnaire responses of the sampled Union producers,
Given that the period considered for the injury analysis
was used in order to establish the total Union
overlaps with that of the expiry review, data for the years
production.
2008 and 2009 are identical except for that of one
company. By disclosing figures for 2008 and 2009 it
would be possible to deduce the figures of the
(53) On
that
basis,
the
total
Union
production
was
estimated
company which was not included in the sample in the
to be around 52 000 tonnes during the IP. This figure
present case. Therefore, micro indicators such as stocks,
includes the production of all Union producers that made
wages, investments, cash flow, return on investments and
themselves known and the estimated production volume
profitability have been indexed.
of producers that did not come forward in the
proceeding.
5.2. Union consumption
(54) As
indicated
in
recital
(13)
above,
sampling
was
applied
(60) Union
consumption
was
established
on
the
basis
of
the
for investigating Union producers. Of the 15 Union
sales volume of the Union industry in the Union as
producers who provided data prior to the initiation of
the proceeding, a sample of five companies was selected.
( 1 ) OJ L 5, 7.1.2012, p. 1.

---

EN
23.3.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
84/41
provided in the complaint and cross checked by the
30 % and when consumption decreased by 16 %. On a
replies to the sampling questionnaires and the verified
year to year basis, Indian imports continued to increase
data obtained from the sampled producers. In addition,
during 2010 (+16 %) and during the IP (+10 %).
the volume of imports based on data from Eurostat for
the period considered was also taken into account.
5.4. Prices of imports and price undercutting
(61) On
this basis the Union consumption developed
as
Table 3
follows:
2008 2009 2010 IP
Average
3 531 2
774 2
994 3
216
Table 1
import price
in EUR/tonne
2008 2009 2010 IP
Index
100 79 85 91
Union
120 598 101
143 122
345 131
457
(2008 = 100)
consumption
(tonnes)
Source: Eurostat and questionnaire replies from sampled EU producers.
Index
100 84 101 109
(2008 = 100)
(65) Average
prices
of
imports
from
India
decreased
overall
by 9 % during the period considered. This explains the
Source: Eurostat, complaint data and questionnaire replies.
increase in the market share of India from 12,1 % to
18,3 % over the same period. The highest increase
occurred between 2008 and 2009, when Indian
(62) Total
consumption
on
the
EU
market
increased
by
9
%
exporters gained more than 6 percentage points of
during the period considered. Between 2008 and 2009
market share.
there was a drastic decrease by 16 %, allegedly due to the
global negative effects of the economic crisis on the
market, after which consumption recovered again by
21 % between 2009 and 2010 and further by 7 %
between 2010 and the IP.
(66) In
order
to
determine
price
undercutting
during
the
IP,
the weighted average sales prices per product type of the
sampled Union producers charged to unrelated
customers on the Union market, adjusted to an ex-
5.3. Imports from the India
works level, were compared to the corresponding

weighted average prices of the imports from India to
(63) Imports
into
the
Union
from
India
developed
as
follows
the first independent customer on the Union market,
during the period considered:
established on a CIF basis, with appropriate adjustments
for the existing customs duties and post-importation
costs.
Table 2
2008 2009 2010 IP
(67) The
price
comparison
was
made
on
a
type-by-type
basis
for transactions at the same level of trade, duly adjusted
Volume of 14 546 18
883 21
914 24
072
where necessary, and after deduction of rebates and
imports from
discounts. The result of the comparison, when
India (tonnes)
expressed as a percentage of the sampled Union
producers' turnover during the IP, showed price under
Index
100 130 151 165
cutting ranging between 3 % and 13 %. It should be
(2008 = 100)
noted in this respect that the Indian exporting
producer not found to be dumping had the highest
Market share 12,1
% 18,7
% 17,9
% 18,3
%
undercutting margin.
Index
100 155 149 152
(2008 = 100)
Source:
5.5. Economic situation of the Union industry
Eurostat and questionnaire replies from exporting producers.
(68) In
accordance
with
Article
3(5)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
the examination of the impact of dumped imports on the
(64) Imports
from
India
increased
significantly
by
65
%
over
Union industry included an evaluation of all economic
the period considered. This increase was strongest
indicators established for the Union industry over the
between 2008 and 2009 when imports surged by
period analysed.

---

L 84/42
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
23.3.2012
5.5.1. Production capacity, production and capacity utilisation
over the period considered. Consequently market share
dropped from 46,5 % in 2008 to 36,6 % in the IP. After
Table 4
a sharp decrease i in 2009 (– 20 %), sales volume
recovered slightly in 2010 and in the IP.
2008 2009 2010 IP
Production
69 514 56
396 62
213 51
800
volume
5.5.3. Growth
(tonnes)
(72) Union
consumption
increased
by
9
%
between
2008
and
the IP. However, sales volume and market share of the
Index
100 81 89 75
(2008 = 100)
Union industry decreased in the same period, by 14 %
and 21 % respectively. At the same time imports from
India increased significantly by 65 %.
Production
140 743 127
200 128
796 111
455
capacity
(tonnes)
5.5.4. Employment
Index
100 90 92 79
(2008 = 100)
Table 6
Capacity utili
49 % 44
% 48
% 46
%
2008 2009 2010 IP
sation
Number of
1 007 863 821 761
Index
100 90 98 94
employees
(2008 = 100)
Index
100 86 82 76
Source: Total Union industry.
(2008 = 100)
Productivity
100 95 110 99
(69) The table above shows that production decreased signifi
(unit/employee)
cantly by 25 % over the period considered. In line with a
Index
(2008 = 100)
decrease in demand, production decreased sharply by
19 % in 2009, after which it recovered by around
Source: Total Union industry
10 % in 2010. In the IP, although the Union
consumption increased by 7
%, Union production
decreased again by around 17 % compared to the
previous year.
(73) Due
to
the
downsizing
activities
of
the
Union
industry,
the number of employees was reduced accordingly
during the period considered by 24 %. Between 2008
(70) The
production
capacity
of
the
Union
industry
decreased
and the IP labour costs per employee increased by 6 %.
by around 21 % over the period considered. Capacity
utilisation also decreased over the period considered,
constantly remaining below 50 %.
(74) Productivity
of
the
Union
industry
workforce,
measured
as output per person employed per year, decreased
5.5.2. Sales volume and, market share
slightly by 1 % over the period considered. It reached
its lowest level in 2009, after which it started to
Table 5
recover towards the IP.
2008 2009 2010 IP
5.5.5. Average unit prices in the Union
Sales volume
56 042 44
627 45
976 48
129
(tonnes)
Table 7
Index
100 80 82 86
2008 2009 2010 IP
(2008 = 100)
Unit price in
4 336 2
792 3
914 4
244
Market share 46,5
% 44,1
% 37,6
% 36,6
%
EU to
unrelated
Index
100 95 81 79
customers
(2008 = 100)
(Euro per
tonne)
Source: Total Union industry
Index
100 64 90 98
(2008 = 100)
(71) In
the
context
of
an
increasing
consumption
(+
9
%),
sales volume of the like product when sold to the first
Source: questionnaire replies sampled producers
independent customer in the Union decreased by 14 %

---

EN
23.3.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
84/43
(75) Average
sales
prices
decreased
by
2
%
over
the
period
(78) Cash flow, which is the ability of the industry to self-
considered. In 2009 the Union industry was forced to
finance its activities, followed a similar trend as profit
reduce its sales prices by 36 %, in the context of the
ability. It reached its lowest level in 2009, after which it
economic downturn and of a sharp decrease of import
showed an increasing trend and turned positive in the IP.
prices from India (– 21 %). During 2010 and the IP the
Union industry sales prices recovered again.
(79) After
making
investments
in
2008
in
the
production
of
SSF, investments decreased by about 94 % during the
period considered. The return on investment showed a
similar negative development in line with the negative
(76) The
investigation
showed
that
the
decrease
in
sales
prices
results achieved by the Union industry over the period
in 2009 reflected the decrease in costs which dropped by
considered and remained always negative.
18 % compared to 2008 levels. This decrease in costs
was mainly due to the decrease in raw material prices,
especially those of nickel, which has an unstable price
dynamic. However, the Union industry was forced to
(80) The
evolution
of
profitability,
the
cash
flow
and
the
low
decrease its sales prices more than the decrease in
level of investments points to the fact that the sampled
costs, in view of the expansion of the low-priced
EU producers may have experienced difficulties to raise
Indian imports in 2009.
capital.
5.5.7. Stocks
Table 9
5.5.6. Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on
investments and ability to raise capital
2008 2009 2010 IP
Table 8
Closing stock
100 92 100 103
of Union
2008 2009 2010 IP
industry
Index (2008 =
Profitability
– 100 –
442 –
74 –
24
100)
of EU sales
(% of net sales)
Source: Questionnaire replies sampled EU producers
Index
(2008 = 100)
(81) The stock level of the sampled Union industry increased
Cash Flow
– 100 –
1
827 –
40 –
171
by 3 % during the period considered. In 2009 the level of
Index
closing stock decreased by 8 %; afterwards, in 2010 and
(2008 = 100)
in the IP it increased by 8 % and 3 % respectively.
Investments
100 29 59
6
(EUR)
Index
(2008 = 100)
5.5.8. Magnitude of the actual margin of dumping and
recovery from past dumping
Return on – 100 –
284 –
59 –
28
(82) It is recalled that the largest Indian exporting producer
Investments
representing 87 % of the Indian exports to the Union in
Index
the IP was found not to be dumping. Consequently
(2008 = 100)
dumped imports accounted for 13 % of the total
Source: Questionnaire replies sampled EU producers
volume of SSF exported from India to the Union.
Given the volume, market share and prices of the
dumped imports from India, the impact on the Union
industry of the actual dumping margins may be
(77) The
investigation
showed
that,
even
if
the
decrease
in
considered to be negligible.
sales prices partly reflected the decrease in costs, the
price of the Union industry was under pressure by the
imports of SSF from India. The profitability of the Union
industry was negative since the beginning of the period
5.6. Conclusion on injury
concerned. Especially in 2009 the Union industry was
forced to decrease its sales prices more than the
(83) The
investigation
showed
that
most
injury
indicators
decrease in costs, in view of the expansion of the low-
such as production (– 25 %), capacity utilisation (– 6 %),
priced Indian imports. This lead to a significant deterio
sales volume (– 14 %), market share (– 21 %), and
ration of profitability in that year. However, in 2010 and
employment (– 24 %) deteriorated during the period
the IP profitability improved, but it still remained
considered. In the context of an increasing consumption,
negative.
both sales volume and market share dropped. Sales

---

L 84/44
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
23.3.2012
volume recovered slightly in 2010 and the IP when
6.2. Effect of the dumped imports
compared to 2009; however, the Union industry was
unable to regain its lost market share in view of the
(88) The
investigation
showed
that
the
Union
consumption
expansion of the Indian imports which increased
increased by 9 % over the period considered, while
steadily over the period considered, at prices constantly
sales volume of the Union industry decreased by 14 %
undercutting those of the Union industry.
and market share dropped by 21 %.
(89) With
regard
to
prices,
the
average
import
prices
of
the
(84) Furthermore, the injury indicators related to the financial
dumped imports were found to undercut the average
performance of the Union industry, such as cash flow
sales prices of the Union industry on the Union
and profitability were seriously affected. This means that
market. However, they were around 12 % higher than
the ability of the Union industry to raise capital was
the prices of the Indian company not found to the
undermined.
dumping.
(90) Based on the above it is considered that the limited
(85) In the light of the foregoing, it was concluded that the
import volume of the dumped imports from India,
Union industry suffered material injury within the
which had higher prices than the non-dumped imports,
meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.
may only have played a very limited role, if any, in the
deterioration of the situation of the Union industry.
6. CAUSATION
6.3. Effect of other factors
6.1. Introduction
6.3.1. Non- dumped imports from India
(86) In accordance with Article 3(6) and Article 3(7) of the
basic Regulation, it was examined whether the dumped
(91) The total volume of imports from India increased
imports originating in India have caused injury to the
dramatically by 65
% over the period considered,
Union industry to a degree that enables it to be classified
increasing their market share from 12,1 % to 18,3 %.
as material. Known factors other than the dumped
However, as explained above, non-dumped imports
imports, which could at the same time be injuring the
represented 87 % of the total Indian export volume in
Union industry, were also examined to ensure that
the IP, corresponding to a market share of 15 % in the
possible injury caused by these other factors was not
IP, as opposed to the market share of 2 % of the dumped
attributed to the dumped imports.
imports from India in the same period.
(92) Prices
of
imports
from
India
decreased
overall
by
9
%
in
(87) It is recalled, that the largest Indian exporting producer,
the period considered, remaining always lower than
referred to in recitals (40) and (41), accounting for 87 %
import prices from the rest of the world and sales
of Indian exports to the Union in the IP was found not
prices of the Union industry. It is noteworthy, however,
to be dumping. Therefore, a mere 13 % of the Indian
that as explained in recital (89), the average prices of the
exports of the product concerned to the Union during
non-dumped imports were found to undercut the prices
the IP were made at dumped prices. These dumped
of the Union industry more than those of the dumped
imports had a market share of 2 % in the IP.
imports.
6.3.2. Imports from other third countries
Table 10
2008 2009 2010 IP
Volume of imports from other third countries in tonnes 50
010 37
633 54
454 59
255
Index (2008 = 100) 100 75 109 118
Market share of imports from other third countries 41,5
% 37,2
% 44,5
% 45,1
%
Index (2008 = 100) 100 90 107 109
Average price of imports from other third countries in
5 380 5
236 5
094 5
234
EUR/tonne

---

EN
23.3.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
84/45
2008 2009 2010 IP
Index (2008 = 100) 100 97 95 97
Volume of imports from Malaysia (tonnes) 13
712 9
810 9
611 9
966
Market share of imports from Malaysia 11,4
% 9,7
% 7,9
% 7,6
%
Average price of imports from Malaysia in EUR/ tonne 4
203 2
963 3
324 3
633
Volume of imports from Philippines (tonnes) 7
046 5
406 15
576 18
149
Market share of imports from Philippines 5,8
% 5,3
% 12,7
% 13,8
%
Average price of imports from Philippines in EUR/tonne 4
645 3
474 3
714 3
912
Volume of imports from the People's Republic of China
2 332 2
452 3
217 3
288
(tonnes)
Market share of imports from the People's Republic of
1,9 % 2,4
% 2,6
% 2,5
%
China
Average price of imports from the People's Republic of
4 004 4
561 5
272 5
648
China in EUR/tonne
Volume of imports from Taiwan (tonnes) 4
304 3
703 6
451 6
640
Market share of imports from Taiwan 3,6
% 3,7
% 5,3
% 5,1
%
Average price of imports from Taiwan in EUR/tonne 5
092 4
719 4
755 4
943
Source: Eurostat
(93) Based
on
Eurostat
data,
the
volume
of
imports
into
the
Union
of
SSF
originating
in
other
third
countries increased by 18 % during the period considered. At the same time, average import prices
decreased by about 3 % during the period considered and their market share increased by about 9 %.
(94) There
have
been
anti-dumping
measures
in
force
on
imports
of
SSF
from
the
People's
Republic
of
China and Taiwan as of 19 November 2005. Despite the measures, imports from these two countries
have increased significantly over the period considered, although market shares remained rather
modest, at 2,5 % and 5,1 % respectively in the IP. Other main sources of imports are the Philippines
and Malaysia. Imports especially from the Philippines increased significantly over the period
considered, increasing their market share from 5,8 % in 2008 to 13,8 % in the IP.
(95) As
regards
Malaysia,
there
was
a
decreasing
trend
over
the
period
considered,
however,
imports
still
had a market share of 7,6 % in the IP. Import volume from the Philippines increased significantly
during the period considered. However, as it emerged from the investigation the average import price
from the Philippines was much higher, namely, about 20 %, than the average price of the Indian SSF.
(96) With
regard
to
import
prices,
the
overall
average
prices
of
imports
from
other
third
countries
remained relatively stable over the period considered and were always above the average sales
prices of the Union industry and the average import prices from India.
(97) On the basis of the above, it was concluded that imports from other third countries did not cause the
material injury suffered by the Union industry.

---

L 84/46
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
23.3.2012
6.3.3. Economic crisis
performance may have had a further negative impact on
the Union industry, it is considered that, given the low
(98) The
economic
crisis
partially
explains
the
contraction
of
volume of exports in relation to sales on the Union
the Union consumption in 2009. However, it is note
market, this impact was not material in respect of the
worthy that despite the decrease of 16 % in consumption
injury found.
in 2009, the volume of Indian imports increased by
30 %.
6.4. Conclusion on causation
(99) In
2010
and
the
IP
Union
consumption
increased
in
line
(103) The above analysis demonstrated that there was a
with the general economic recovery. However, sales
substantial increase over the period considered in the
volume of the Union industry increased only slightly,
volume and market share of the low-priced imports orig
by 3 % in 2010 and by 4,7 % in the IP This compares
inating in India. It was also found that these imports
to an annual increase in Indian imports by 16 % and
were constantly undercutting the prices charged by the
10 % respectively.
Union industry on the Union market.
(100) Under normal economic conditions and in the absence
(104) However, in view of the finding that the largest Indian
of strong price pressure and increased import levels from
exporting producer, which represented 87 % of the
India, the Union industry might have had some difficulty
Indian exports to the Union in the IP did not export
in coping with the decrease in consumption and the
SSF to the Union at dumped prices, it is considered
increase in fixed costs per unit due to the decreased
that a causal link between the dumped imports,
capacity utilisation it experienced. However, the low-
accounting for a mere 13 % of the total quantity
priced Indian imports, majority of which were found
exported from India, and the injury suffered by the
not to be dumped, have intensified the effect of the
Union industry cannot be sufficiently established.
economic downturn and even during the general
Indeed, it cannot be argued that the dumped Indian
economic recovery, the Union industry was unable to
exports, in view of their limited volume and very
recover and to regain the market share lost to the
limited market share (2 %) and the fact that their prices
Indian imports.
were on average 12 % higher than those of the non-
dumped imports, would be causing the injury suffered
by the Union industry.
(101) Therefore, although the economic crisis 2008-2009 may
have contributed to the Union industry's poor
performance, it cannot be considered to have a
(105) The analysis of the other known factors, which could
material impact on the injurious situation of the Union
have caused injury to the Union industry, including the
industry.
non-dumped imports, imports from other third coun
tries, the economic crisis and the export performance
of the sampled Union industry showed that the injury
suffered by the Union industry appears to be due to the
impact of the non-dumped imports from India which
6.3.4. Export performance of the sampled Union industry
represented 87 % of all Indian exports to the Union in
the IP and which were made at significantly lower prices
Table 12
than the dumped imports.
2008 2009 2010 IP
Export sales 967 689 933 884
in tonnes
7. TERMINATION OF THE ANTI-DUMPING
PROCEEDING
Index
100 71 97 91
(2008 = 100)
(106) In the absence of a material causal link between the
dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union
Unit selling 4 770 3
060 4
020 4
313
industry, it is considered that anti-dumping measures are
price in euro
unnecessary and therefore the present anti-dumping
Index
100 64 84 90
proceeding should be terminated in accordance with
(2008 = 100)
Article 9(2) of the basic Regulation.
Source: Questionnaire replies sampled EU producers
(107) The complainant and all other interested parties were
(102) During the period considered the volume of export sales
informed accordingly and were given the opportunity
of the sampled Union industry decreased by 9 % while
to comment. The comments received did not alter the
average export prices dropped by 10 %. While it cannot
conclusion that the present anti-dumping proceeding
be excluded that the negative trend in the export
should be terminated,

---

EN
23.3.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
84/47
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof,
currently falling within CN codes 7318 12 10, 7318 14 10, 7318 15 30, 7318 15 51, 7318 15 61 and
7318 15 70, originating in India, is hereby terminated.
Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European
Union.
Done at Brussels, 22 March 2012.
For the Commission
The President
José Manuel BARROSO

---

Document Outline

• �

---