HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
15.3.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
73/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 214/2013
of 11 March 2013
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
imports of certain organic coated steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
injury resulting from it, which was considered sufficient
to justify the initiation of a proceeding.
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union,
2. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE
(3)
Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and
considerations on the basis of which it was decided to
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
impose provisional anti-dumping measures ('the
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
provisional disclosure'), several interested parties made
from countries not members of the European Community ( 1 )
written submissions making known their views on the
('the basic Regulation'), and in particular Article 9 and 14(1)
provisional findings. The parties who so requested were
thereof,
granted the opportunity to be heard.
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European
Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,
(4) The
Commission
continued
to
seek
and
verify
all
information it deemed necessary for its definitive
findings. Further verification visits were carried out at
the premises of the following company:
Whereas:
1. PROVISIONAL MEASURES
— Macrometal, Hamburg
(1) The
European
Commission
('the Commission'), by Regu
lation (EU) No 845/2012 ( 2 ) ('the provisional Regulation')
imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty ('the
provisional measures') on imports of certain organic
(5)
Subsequently all parties were informed of the essential
coated steel products ('OCS') originating in the People’s
facts and considerations on the basis of which it was
Republic of China ('PRC').
intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive
anti-dumping duty on imports of certain organic
coated steel products originating in the PRC and the
definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of
(2) The
proceeding
was
initiated
following
a
complaint
provisional duty ('the final disclosure'). All parties were
lodged on 7 November 2011 by Eurofer ('the
granted a period within which they could make
complainant') on behalf of producers representing a
comments on the final disclosure.
major proportion, in this case more than 70 %, of the
total Union production of OCS. The complaint contained
prima facie evidence of dumping of OCS and of material
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
(6) The
comments
submitted
by
the
interested
parties
were
( 2 ) OJ L 252, 19.9.2012, p. 33.
considered and taken into account where appropriate.

---

L 73/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.3.2013
2.1. Investigation period
primer, whether organic or inorganic, are not included
in the product scope and as a result cannot be removed
(7) As
set
out
in
recital
(12)
of
the
provisional
Regulation,
from it.
the investigation of dumping and injury covered the
period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011
(the 'investigation period' or 'IP'). The examination of
trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the
period from January 2008 to the end of the IP ('the
period considered').
3.1.3. OCS with substrate thickness between 0,6 and 2,0 mm
(13) CISA
and
two
importers
requested
the
exclusion
of
OCS
with substrate thickness between 0,6 and 2,0 mm, repre
senting 5 – 10 % of imports from China, stating that
there was only direct competition between Chinese
3. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
exports and Union industry production for OCS with
3.1. Product exclusion requests
substrate thickness of between 0,25 and 0,6 mm.

(8)
Recitals (19) and (20) of the provisional Regulation stated
that the Commission had received several requests for
product exclusion and that no conclusions had been
reached at the time of the provisional Regulation being
(14) This request was rejected given that both Chinese
published.
exporters and the Union industry manufacture and sell
OCS with a substrate thickness of between 0,6 and
2,0 mm and that therefore these products are clearly in
competition with each other. No evidence was provided
to show that OCS with a substrate thickness of over
(9) After
disclosure
of
the
provisional
findings,
more
0,6 mm does not compete with OCS with a substrate
requests were received and have been analysed as follows:
thickness of less than 0,6 mm and that therefore this
would constitute a different product type. OCS with
substrate thickness of less than and above 0,6 mm
have the same basic physical and technical characteristics
and same end uses and therefore are the same product.
3.1.1. OCS with metallic coating of chromium or tin
(10) A
user
of
OCS
submitted
a
request
to
exclude
OCS
with
a substrate with a metallic coating of chromium or tin
from the product scope. The investigation established
that the metallic coating of chromium or tin renders
3.1.4. OCS with aluminium-zinc alloy coated substrate
this product type physically and chemically different to
(15) The two importers alleged that only four Union
the OCS under investigation. OCS with a substrate with a
producers have the licence to produce this product
metallic coating of chromium or tin is almost exclusively
type and that only one company was in fact producing
used in the food packaging and cable industries. The
it. They also alleged that this product differs from zinc
Union industry also explained that it had not intended
coated OCS in terms of product characteristics.
this product to form part of the product scope. For these
reasons OCS with a substrate with a metallic coating of
chromium or tin has been excluded from the product
scope of the investigation.
(16) This
request
was
rejected
as
the
two
product
types
are
interchangeable with overlapping uses and at least two
cooperating Union producers manufactured this product
(11) The China Iron and Steel Association
('CISA'), two
type during the investigation period. It should be noted
importers and one user proposed the exclusion of four
that only one cooperating Chinese exporting producer
other product types. These requests were analysed and
exported this product type to the Union during the
rejected as below.
investigation period.
3.1.2. Hot-rolled plates with protective primer, whether
3.1.5. OCS with zinc alloy coated substrate
organic or inorganic
(17) This request was rejected because, contrary to the
(12) This
request
was
rejected
because
these
products
do
not
assertion of one user, this product is produced and
fall under the CN codes under investigation. The painting
sold in significant quantities by several Union
or coating is only for rust protection and those products
producers and has the same essential physical and
therefore fall under CN heading 7208 and not CN
technical characteristics and end uses as other types of
heading 7210. Hot-rolled plates with a protective
OCS.

---

EN
15.3.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
73/3
3.2. Product inclusion request
confirmed. None of the two groups of cooperating
exporters in the PRC that had requested MET could
(18) Following
disclosure
of the
provisional
findings,
one
show that they fulfilled the criteria for being granted
association requested that OCS with a metallic coating
MET.
of chromium or tin, classified under TARIC codes
7210 12 20 10 and 7210 50 00 10 be included in the
product scope. This request was rejected as these codes
were not included in the original complaint and the
products covered by such codes have different physical
and technical characteristics from the products covered
4.2. Individual treatment ('IT')
by the complaint.
(24) Two
exporting
producers
in
the
PRC
met
the
criteria
for
being granted IT (recital (40) of the provisional Regu
lation). Another party reiterated its claims to be
granted IT and individual examination. Indeed, this
3.3. Product concerned
party withdrew its MET claim but maintained its
request to be granted IT, as well as individual examin
(19) Given the acceptance of the exclusion of OCS with
ation. This claim was considered as a claim for individual
metallic coating of chromium or tin, the provisional
examination and therefore included in the requests
findings with regard to the product concerned, outlined
mentioned in recital (41) of the provisional Regulation.
in recitals (13) and (14) of the provisional Regulation, are
In accordance with Article 9(5) and 9(6) of the basic
amended by this exclusion.
Regulation, individual duties shall be applied to imports
from any exporter or producer which will be granted
individual examination, as provided for in Article 17(3)
of the basic Regulation. As explained in more detail in
(20) The product concerned is therefore certain organic
recitals (26) to (31) below, the claim for an individual
coated steel products ('OCS'), i.e. flat-rolled products of
duty for this party was rejected.
non-alloy and alloy steel (not including stainless steel)
which are painted, varnished or coated with plastics on
at least one side, excluding so-called 'sandwich panels' of
a kind used for building applications and consisting of
two outer metal sheets with a stabilising core of insu
(25) In
the
absence
of
any
other
comments
on
IT,
recitals
(39)
lation material sandwiched between them, excluding
to (40) of the provisional Regulation are hereby
those products with a final coating of zinc-dust (a
confirmed.
zinc-rich paint, containing by weight 70 % or more of
zinc), and excluding those products with a substrate with
a metallic coating of chromium or tin, currently falling
within CN codes ex 7210 70 80, ex 7212 40 80,
ex 7225 99 00, ex 7226 99 70, and originating in the
4.3. Individual examination ('IE')
People’s Republic of China ('the product concerned').
(26) Claims
for
individual
examination
were
submitted
by
eight exporting producers pursuant to Article 17(3) of
the basic Regulation. As explained in recitals (41) and
3.4. Like product
(42) of the provisional Regulation, hereby confirmed,
one exporting producer, Union Steel China, which
(21) Since
no
comments
were
received
with
regard
to
the
requested MET, was inspected in the framework of the
conclusions outlined in recitals (15) to (18) of the
examination of its MET claim.
provisional Regulation, the provisional findings with
regard to the like product are hereby confirmed.
(27) With
regard
to
all
other
claims
for
individual
examin
4. DUMPING
ation, it was concluded that individual examinations
would be unduly burdensome and would prevent the
(22) Several Chinese exporting producers submitted
completion of the investigation in good time. Accord
comments on dumping following the imposition of
ingly, these claims were not accepted.
provisional measures and the disclosure of the Commis
sion's provisional findings to the Chinese exporting
producers.
(28) One
party
argued
that
its
request
cannot
be
considered
as
administratively burdensome after the provisional stage
4.1. Market economy treatment ('MET')
the Commission services still have six months before
the definitive determination. Also, in recent proceedings
(23) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
concerning
MET,
recitals
the Commission services have granted individual exam
(21) to (38) of the provisional Regulation are hereby
ination after the provisional stage.

---

L 73/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.3.2013
(29) Another
party,
already
referred
to
in
recital
(24)
above,
to calculate normal value that could be released without
argued that it should be granted individual examination
infringing the provisions of Article 19 of the basic Regu
as it has submitted the necessary information within the
lation, i.e. assuring at the same time that any confidential
time limits set and as individual examination was already
data provided by the sole Canadian producer is treated as
granted to another exporting producer, Union Steel
such and is not disclosed to other parties. The
China.
information provided to the exporting producers
enabled them to understand the methodology used in
line with the provisions of Article 2 of the basic Regu
lation. However, it was found that more detailed data
(30) Decisions
whether
or
not
to
accept
individual
examin
could be provided per product type by using ranges in
ations are taken on a case by case basis, taking into
order to respect the confidentiality of the data. Such data
account the number of claims submitted and the time
were provided in the final disclosure. In addition, more
available to assess these claims. In this case, in view of
detailed information was provided as to why some
the number of claims submitted, the limited time
products types were found not to be representative and
available after the examination of the sampled
the level of the adjustments made to the normal value.
exporting producers and the MET claim of the
exporting producer which was not included in the
sample and the procedural deadlines which need to be
respected, it was decided that these claims cannot be
accepted, as set out in recital (27) above.
(36) Following the final disclosure, one party acknowledged
that more detailed data was indeed provided, but argued
that some data were still missing, in particular with
regard to the level of the cost of manufacturing used
(31) As
explained
in
recital
(41)
of
the
provisional
Regulation,
to construct the normal value for those product types
with regard to Union Steel China the circumstances were
that were not sold domestically.
different as this company was already inspected in the
framework of the examination of its MET claim.
(37) For
those
product
types
not
sold
domestically,
the
cost
of
4.4. Normal value
manufacturing of the closest resembling product types
were used as a basis and adjusted where appropriate.
4.4.1. Analogue country
Although they were not identical to those exported by
the Chinese exporting producers, they nevertheless very
(32) No further
comments were received concerning the
closely resembled the types sold by the Chinese exporting
selection of Canada as the analogue country. Therefore
producers, as in general only the thickness of the organic
recitals (43) to (49) of the provisional Regulation are
coating varied. Accordingly, the differences in cost of
hereby confirmed.
manufacturing were found to be minor.
4.4.2. Determination of normal value
(38) As acknowledged by that party in its submission, in the
(33) Normal value was calculated on the basis of the data
final disclosure the Commission provided more detailed
provided by the sole cooperating producer in the
data presented in ranges, including data relating to the
analogue country (i.e. Canada). Thus, normal value was
cost of manufacturing, SG&A and profit in the analogue
established on the basis of prices of domestic sales and
country used to construct normal value, data relating to
constructed normal value of one Canadian producer of
the overall level of adjustments made to the normal
the like product as explained in recitals (50) to (55) of
value, data relating to the final normal value per group
the provisional Regulation.
of product types, data regarding the representativeness
and the nature and effects of the adjustments made to
the normal value.
(34) Following the provisional disclosure, two Chinese
exporting producers argued that the Commission did
not provide necessary information in relation to the
normal value in the analogue country, in particular
(39) As follows from the above, the final disclosure, made in
regarding the different product types, comparability of
accordance with the requirements of Article 20 of the
the products, representativeness and adjustments.
basic Regulation, allowed interested parties to understand
in detail the methodology used in line with the
provisions of Article 2 of the basic Regulation and all
parties were given the opportunity to comment on the
(35) These
claims
were
partially
accepted.
The
Commission
final disclosure. Therefore, it is concluded that the
provided to the Chinese exporting producers all
disclosure was complete and that the rights of defence
relevant information concerning the data used in order
of interested parties were fully respected.

---

EN
15.3.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
73/5
(40) One party claimed that the source of the selling, general
respect the confidentiality of the data provided by the
and administrative costs and profit in cases where the
Canadian producer, those data could not be provided.
normal value was constructed was left unexplained.
However, the overall percentage of the adjustments was
However, in recital (55) of the provisional Regulation it
given in the final disclosure, showing that the impact of
is explained that the selling, general and administrative
the adjustments was minor.
costs of the Canadian producer and the profit margin of
the Canadian producer for the product types that were
found to be profitable were used in cases where the
normal value had to be constructed. In accordance
with Article 2(3) and 2(6) of the basic Regulation,
(47) As set out in recital (37) above, in case of any difference
selling, general and administrative costs and profit are
found the product types that were sold domestically
based on verified costs and verified domestic sales in
resembled nevertheless very closely the types sold by
the ordinary course of trade of the analogue country
the Chinese exporting producers. These product types
producer.
were found to be similar in terms of steel quality,
substrate width and thickness of the substrate used and
the type and mass of the metallic coating used.
(41) In view of the above, recitals (50) to (55) of the
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
(48) Where
appropriate
the adjustment for differences in
physical characteristics was made, as set out in recital
(45) above, due to a difference in the quality of the
4.5. Export price
organic coating used with regard to some of the
product types. In order to assess the market value of
(42) In
the
absence
of
any
comments,
recital
(56)
of
the
the difference, the average cost difference with the
provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
closest resembling product type was taken into account
as well as international market prices.
4.6. Comparison
(43) Two parties claimed that the Commission did not
(49) The
same
party
enquired
whether
transport
costs
and
provide sufficient information with regard to the
insurance costs were included in the SG&A. It should
comparability of the product types and their representa
be stated that as the comparison was done on an ex-
tiveness at product type level.
works basis, these costs were not included.
(44) As
explained in recital (35) above, the Commission
(50) One
party
argued
that
their
claim
for
an
adjustment
in
provided to the Chinese exporting producers all the
relation to the value of three invoices should have been
relevant data that could be provided, taking into
taken into account, as well as one particular sales trans
account the provisions on confidentiality in the basic
action which had been disregarded. This claim related to
Regulation. More detailed information per product type
compensation paid to a customer linked to sales made
was indeed provided following this claim made after the
prior to the investigation period, but which had been
provisional disclosure, including the reasons why some
treated as a discount to the value of these three
product types were found not to be representative and,
invoices issued in the investigation period, resulting in
accordingly, the normal value had to be constructed.
the value of these invoices being artificially lowered. The
company's claim was accepted. The requested adjustment
was made and the sales transaction, which was
erronеously omitted, was included in the calculation of
(45) Following
the
verification
visit
to
the
Canadian
analogue
the export price.
country producer, the normal values for some product
types were adjusted downwards for differences in
physical characteristics in accordance with Article 2(10)(a)
of the basic Regulation, mainly as it was found that the
organic coating used by the Canadian producer with
(51) In the absence of any other comments, recital (57) of the
regard to some of the product types was of a different
provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
quality than the one used by the Chinese exporting
producers. These adjustments have resulted in a lower
normal value for the product types concerned.
4.7. Dumping margin
(52) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
in
this
respect,
the
(46) One party requested the amounts of each of the
methodology as set out in recitals (58) and (59) of the
adjustments made to the normal value. In order to
provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.

---

L 73/6
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.3.2013
(53) Following
provisional
disclosure,
the
Commission
was
5.3. Union consumption
informed that some trading companies, which did not
produce the product concerned, had been named in the
(58) Following the publication of the provisional Regulation
operative part of the Regulation. Those trading
some interested parties pointed out some inconsistencies
companies have now been removed from the operative
in the injury data published. The Commission re-
part and only exporting producers are now named.
examined the data and, where necessary, revised data
concerning the Union industry and Union market.
Whereas those revisions have caused some figures to
change in some years, the trends, and therefore the
(54) Taken into account the adjustment of the normal value
conclusions on those data remain generally unchanged.
and the very minor adjustment to the export price, as set
out in recitals (45) and (50) above, and in the absence of
any further comments, the definitive dumping margins,
expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price,
(59) After the revision explained above, the total Union
duty unpaid, are as follows:
consumption developed as follows:
2008 2009 2010 IP
Company Name
Dumping margin
(%)
Consumption 5 197 716 3 879 380 4 548 528 4 811 310
Zhangjiagang Panhua Steel Strip Co., Ltd,
60,9
(in tonnes)
Chongqing Wanda Steel Strip Co., Ltd, and
Zhangjiagang Free Trade Zone Jiaxinda Inter
Index
100 75 88 93
national Trade Co., Ltd
(2008=100)
Zhejiang Huadong Light Steel Building
48,9
Material Co. Ltd and Hangzhou P.R.P.T.
Metal Material Company Ltd
(60) Total
consumption
on
the
Union
market
shrank
by
7
%
over the period considered. Between 2008 and 2009
Union Steel China 50,9
there was a decrease of about 25 % mainly as a result
of the global negative effects of the economic crisis,
Other co-operating companies 55,0
especially on the construction industry. After that
consumption started to recover and increased by 18
Non co-operating companies 68,1
percentage points from 2009 to the IP but it was still
below the initial level of 2008.
(55) On the basis of the facts stated in recital (60) of the
provisional Regulation, the country-wide definitive
dumping margin for the PRC was established by using
(61) In
the
absence
of
comments
on
Union
consumption,
the highest dumping margin established for represen
recitals (70) to (72) of the provisional Regulation are
tative product types of exporting producers. Taking
hereby confirmed.
into account the adjustment of the normal value as set
out in recital (45) above, the countervailing duties
resulting from export subsidies imposed on the same
product in the parallel anti-subsidy proceeding and in
5.4. Imports into the Union and market share
the absence of any other comments, the country-wide
level of dumping is established at 68,1 % of the CIF
(62) Imports
into
the
Union
from
the
PRC
developed
as
Union frontier price, duty unpaid.
follows during the period considered. The market share
percentages have changed as a result of the changes in
the consumption figures:
5. INJURY
5.1. Union production and Union industry
2008 2009 2010 IP
(56) In the absence of further comments on Union
Volume of imports 472 988 150
497 464
582 702
452
production, recitals (63) to (64) of the provisional Regu
from the PRC
lation are hereby confirmed.
(tonnes)
Index (2008=100) 100 32 98 149
5.2. Union market
Market share (%) 9,1 3,9 10,2 14,6
(57) In the absence of further comments on the Union
Index (2008=100) 100 43 112 160
market, recitals (65) to (69) of the provisional Regulation
Source: Eurostat
are hereby confirmed.

---

EN
15.3.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
73/7
(63) The
change
in
consumption
data
above
has
changed
the
6.2. Data relating to the Union industry as a whole
percentage market share of imports from the PRC from
(macroeconomic indicators)
the data published in the Provisional Regulation. The
trend however remains the same. Market share of
(69) Following
the
disclosure
of
the
provisional
findings
in
imports from the PRC increased significantly from
recitals (86) to (92) the Commission updated the data
9,1 % at the start of the period considered to 14,6 % at
sources on which these findings were based. This update
the end. After a decrease in 2009 mirroring the strong
has not significantly changed the indicators published in
decline in consumption due to the economic crisis,
the provisional Regulation nor has it changed the trends
imports recovered at a very fast pace, with market
on which the Commission's injury analysis was based.
share recovering in one year to 2008 i.e. to pre
The updated data is published below as follows:
economic crisis levels and then by the end of the IP
significantly exceeding them.
6.2.1. Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation
2008 2009 2010 IP
5.4.1. Prices of imports and price undercutting
Production
4 447 780 3 514 965 3 992 209 4 018 310
(64) Following
disclosure
one
exporting
producer
requested
volume (tonnes)
further information on the calculation of the price under
Index
100 79 90 90
cutting where there was no exact match between the
(2008=100)
product type exported from the PRC and the product
type sold on the Union market by the Union industry.
Production
6 007 536 6 128 301 6 099 587 5 923 311
They also requested information as to whether an
capacity
adjustment had been made for physical differences
(tonnes)
where no exact match had been found.
Index
100 102 102 99
(2008=100)
Capacity
74 57 65 68
utilisation (%)
(65) Where
no
exact
match
existed
between
the
exported
product type and the product type sold by the Union
Index
100 77 88 92
industry, the Commission compared the exported
(2008=100)
product type to the closest resembling product type
sold by the Union industry. In these cases a comparison
Source: Complaint, questionnaire replies
was made to the closely resembling product type where
the only difference was the substrate thickness.
(70) Whereas the data have changed slightly, the trends and
the conclusions set out in recitals (87) and (88) of the
provisional Regulation remain unaffected and are
(66) Where
there
was
more than one closely
resembling
therefore confirmed. Production decreased sharply in
product type, the Commission compared the exported
2009, partially recovering in 2010 and remaining
product type to the cheaper product type sold on the
stable in the IP but still below 2008 levels. Production
Union market, regardless of whether this cheaper product
capacity remained constant during the period considered
type had a thicker, or thinner, substrate. Therefore, no
while capacity utilisation declined, following the trend of
adjustment for physical differences was deemed
production.
necessary.
6.2.2. Sales volume, market share and growth
(67) In the absence of other comments on the prices of
2008 2009 2010 IP
imports and price undercutting, recitals (78) to (81) of
Sales volume
2 951 468 2 280 304 2 643 923 2 592 540
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
(tonnes)
Index
100 77 90 88
(2008=100)
6. ECONOMIC SITUATION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY
Market share
56,8 58,8 58,1 53,9
(%)
6.1. Preliminary remarks
Index
100 104 102 95
(68) In
the
absence
of
comments
on
the
preliminary
remarks
(2008=100)
on the economic situation of the Union industry the
Source: Complaint, questionnaire replies
conclusions in recitals (82) to (85) remain unaffected.

---

L 73/8
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.3.2013
(71) In
2009
the
Union
industry
sales
volume
to
unrelated
on which the Commission's injury analysis was based.
customers decreased sharply by 23 %. In 2010, sales
The updated data is published below as follows:
volume increased by thirteen percentage points, but
then dropped by two percentage points in the IP. The
conclusions as set out in recitals (90) and (91) of the
provisional Regulation are therefore confirmed.
6.3.1. Average unit prices of the representative Union
producers
6.2.3. Employment and productivity
(74) After the drop in unit price to unrelated customers by

21 % in 2009 and accompanying loss, the unit price
started to recover. In 2010 and during the IP, the
Union industry experienced an increase in costs and
2008 2009 2010 IP
could only moderately increase the prices to cover
them, enough just to keep the profitability on the same
Employment
7 088 6
470 6
097 6
046
low level for 2010 and the IP. However, this resulted in a
(in FTE)
further loss in market share since the Chinese import
prices were constantly undercutting the Union industry
Index
100 91 86 85
prices.
(2008=100)
Productivity
627 543 655 665
(tonnes/FTE)
Index
100 87 104 106
2008 2009 2010 IP
(2008=100)
Unit price in EU to unrelated 1 023 805 911 994
Source: Complaint, questionnaire replies, Eurofer
customers (EUR/tonne)
Index (2008=100) 100 79 89 97
Unit cost of production 925 884 893 978
(72) Whereas the data have slightly changed, the conclusions
(EUR/tonne)
on employment as set out in recital (92) of the
provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Index (2008=100) 100 95 97 106
Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled producers
6.3. Data relating to the sampled Union producers
(microeconomic indicators)
6.3.2. Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on
(73) Following the disclosure of the provisional findings in
investment
recitals (93) to (108) the Commission updated the data
sources on which these findings were based. This update
(75) This table is included here for ease of reference, as the
has not significantly changed the indicators published in
data and therefore the conclusions drawn from it have
the provisional Regulation nor has it changed the trends
not changed.
2008 2009 2010 IP
Profitability of sales in the EU to unrelated
6,7 –
9,3 2,8 2,6
customers (% of sales turnover)
Index (2008=100) 100
– 138 41 39
Cash flow (EUR)
328 190 880 211
298
356 152
030
083
204 650 414
Index (2008=100) 100 64 46 62
Investments (EUR) 55
717
957 4
537
128 12
530
132 15
302
264
Index (2008=100) 100
8 22 27
Return on investments (%) 13,8 –
13,9 5,9
6
Index (2008=100) 100
– 101 43 44
Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled producers

---

EN
15.3.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
73/9
6.3.3. Stocks
(78) Despite
the
corrections
made
to
the
data
published
in
the
Provisional Regulation, the findings on captive use and
(76) This
table
is
restated
here
for
ease
of
reference,
as
the
sales remain unchanged. The average value per tonne of
data and therefore the conclusions drawn from it have
captive sales remained stable during the period
not changed.
considered and was 3 % lower than the sales price to
unrelated customers in the IP of the sampled Union
producers.
2008 2009 2010 IP
Closing stocks 116 852 97
533 124
848 130
593
6.4. Conclusion on injury
(tonnes)
(79) Based on the above, the provisional findings set out in
Index
100 83 107 112
recitals (110) to (113) of the provisional Regulation are
(2008=100)
hereby confirmed.
Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled producers
(80) Following the publication of the provisional Regulation
two parties came forward and claimed that more recent
6.3.4. Employment, wages and productivity
data are more relevant to the determination of injury and
that the Commission should not have taken 2008 as the
(77) This
table
is
restated
here
for
ease
of
reference,
as
the
data and therefore the conclusions drawn from it have
starting point of the injury analysis, but rather should
not changed.
have used 2009. They stated that WTO case law has

made the point that more recent data are more
relevant to the determination of injury than historical
data, and that the outcome of an end-point to end-
point comparison very much depends on which years
are used, as a one-year shift can show a different
Average labour costs per 60 959 57 892 58 637 62 347
result. A comparison from 2009 to the end of the IP
employee (EUR, sampled
therefore shows a different trend to a comparison from
EU producers)
the start of the period considered to the end of the IP.
Index (2008=100) 100 95 96 102
Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled producers
(81) This
claim
was
not
accepted.
The
period
considered
was
defined in line with usual practice, and the recommen
dations of the WTO, as an objective period of three to
6.3.5. Captive use and captive sales
four years ending at the end of the investigation period,
which is itself a 12 month period ending as close as
possible to the date of initiation.
2008 2009 2010 IP
Captive use and
1 135 987 914 412 986 386 970 757
captive sales (tonnes)
Index (2008=100) 100 80 87 85
(82) Even
if
the
period
considered
had
started
in
2009,
the
finding of material injury would remain valid. The Union
Market share (%) 22 24 22 20
industry had not reached its target profit with increasing
imports during the period despite increasing production
Index (2008=100) 100 108 99 92
volumes, and sales volumes, and increasing productivity.
As consumption rises after 2009 this increase was
Source: Complaint and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled
producers
supplied by imports from China, and not by the Union
industry, who lost market share from 2009 to the end of
the IP.
2008 2009 2010 IP
7. CAUSALITY
Captive use and captive
962 802 901 965
sales (EUR/tonne)
7.1. Effect of the dumped imports
Index (2008=100) 100 83 94 100
(83) In
the
absence
of
comments,
the
provisional
findings
set
out in recitals (115) to (119) of the provisional Regu
Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled producers
lation are hereby confirmed.

---

L 73/10
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.3.2013
7.2. Effect
of
other
factors
7.2.1. Imports from third countries
Country 2008 2009 2010 IP
South Korea Volume
(tonnes) 228
123 226
568 173
935 237
164
Index (2008=100) 100 99 76 104
Market share (%) 4,4 5,8 3,8 4,9
Index (2008=100) 100 133 87 112
Av. price 901 727 846 903
Index (2008=100) 100 81 94 100
India Volume
(tonnes) 159
999 149
138 155
384 141
391
Index (2008=100) 100 93 97 88
Market share (%) 3,1 3,8 3,4 2,9
Index (2008=100) 100 125 111 95
Av. price 932 667 773 824
Index (2008=100) 100 72 83 88
Other countries Volume
(tonnes) 249
151 158
461 124
319 167
007
Index (2008=100) 100 64 50 67
Market share (%) 4,8 4,1 2,7 3,5
Index (2008=100) 100 85 57 72
Av. price 951 809 924 955
Index (2008=100) 100 85 97 100
Total of all third Volume (tonnes) 637
274 534
167 453
637 545
562
countries except the
PRC
Index (2008=100) 100 84 71 86
Market share (%) 12,3 13,8 10,0 11,3
Index (2008=100) 100 112 81 92
Av. price 929 735 842 898
Index (2008=100) 100 79 91 97
Source: Eurostat
(84) Given the small changes made to the data from the Union industry, this has also slightly affected the
data concerning market shares of imports from third countries.
(85) Some
interested
parties
challenged
the
Commission's
decision
to
open
an
investigation
only
against
China, and not against India and South Korea, although the import volumes and price trends
matched those of the PRC.
(86) As set out in recitals (120) to (122) of the provisional Regulation, import volumes from India fell
during the period considered, and imports from South Korea increased by only 4 %. Indian prices
dropped by 12 % and South Korean prices remained stable, but at all times higher than those from
China. The argument is therefore rejected as the Commission received no evidence or allegation of
dumping and resulting injury from those countries.

---

EN
15.3.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
73/11
(87) The
findings
as
set
out
in
recitals
(120)
to
(122)
of
the
(92) The
findings
of
recital
(125)
of
the
provisional
Regu
provisional Regulation are therefore confirmed.
lation are therefore confirmed.
7.2.2. Export performance of the Union industry
7.2.4. Captive use and captive sales
2008 2009 2010 IP
(93) Following
final
disclosure
CISA
again
claimed
that
the
Union industry was making OCS available to its related
Exports, Eurostat
669 790 612 204 580 477 605 760
downstream businesses at a "subsidised" price, thereby
(tonnes)
undercutting their competitors in the downstream
Index (2008=100) 100 91 87 90
segment. However, no evidence was provided to change
the Commission's conclusion in recital (127) of the
Average price
1 068 937 995 1
092
provisional Regulation, i.e. that the price difference
(EUR/tonne)
between related and unrelated sales was small (2 %)
and that this was not a case of self-inflicted injury.
Index (2008=100) 100 88 93 102
Exports by sampled 53 542 46
516 48
102 46
228
Union producers
(94) CISA also challenged the data on the cost of production
Index (2008=100) 100 87 90 86
of OCS and, in extension, the price of OCS to related
Average selling
1 086 826 984 1
132
parties. Given the sales price of hot-dipped galvanised
price (EUR/tonne)
coils, a raw material in the manufacture of OCS, they
allege that the cost of production of OCS in the investi
Index (2008=100) 100 76 91 104
gation period could not exceed 900 EUR/tonne.
Source: Eurostat and verified questionnaire replies
(95) Whereas the Commission does not dispute the data
provided by CISA regarding the production cost of
(88) In
the
absence
of
comments
on
the
export
performance
hot-dipped galvanised coils, the cost of production of
of the Union industry, the findings of recitals (123) to
OCS was verified in all of the sampled Union producers.
(124) are hereby confirmed.
The Commission is satisfied that the full cost of
production (raw materials, processing, coating, SG&A,
finance costs etc.) is as set out in recital (74) above.
7.2.3. Imports from the PRC by the Union industry
(89) Some
parties
continued
making
allegations
that
contrary
to that stated in recital (125) of the provisional Regu
(96) CISA
then
claimed
that
the
sale
of
OCS
to
related
parties
lation, the import volumes of the Union industry from
is made at a loss and is therefore a cause of injury to the
the PRC constituted up to 40 % of total imports from the
Union industry. This is based on a comparison of the
PRC. No evidence was provided for this allegation and it
total cost of production (978 EUR/tonne) versus the
could not be confirmed. The allegation is therefore
average price of related sale (965 EUR/tonne).
rejected.
(97) Whereas it is correct that a simple mathematical
(90) Following
final
disclosure
one
importer
claimed
that
the
comparison would suggest that related sales were made
Union industry was importing large quantities of the
at a loss, this would assume that the Union industry
product concerned from the PRC and used its re-sales
would incur the same level of SG&A and other sales
data to demonstrate this.
overheads on their captive sales as on their unrelated
ones. As stated in recital (105) of the provisional Regu
lation, sales to related parties were made on a 'cost plus'
basis and therefore the Union Industry was recovering
(91) The
fact
that
the
Union
industry
has
imported
quantities
their costs on these sales.
of the product concerned from the PRC is not in dispute.
However, even using the importer's own data, the
volume claimed is less than 1 % of total imports from
the PRC and therefore negligible. As stated in recital
(125) of the provisional Regulation, imports from the
(98) In
the
absence
of
other
comments
on
this
point
the
PRC by the Union industry were 2-3 % of total
findings of recitals (126) to (127) of the provisional
imports during the investigation period.
Regulation are hereby confirmed.

---

L 73/12
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.3.2013
7.2.5. Economic crisis
8. UNION INTEREST
(99) After the deadline for comments to the final disclosure
8.1. Union industry
an interested party noted the announced closure of a
plant in Belgium, and that force majeure was causing
(105) No new comments or information were received
difficulties to normal production and shipment from
regarding the interest of the Union producers after
other facilities in Belgium. The interested party alleged
disclosure of the provisional findings. Therefore recitals
that this shows the lack of security of supply of OCS
(138) to (143) of the provisional Regulation on the
in the EU and was a reason to allow importers and users
interest of these interested parties are hereby confirmed.
to freely source their OCS from the EU and from China.
(100) These arguments are rejected. Given that capacity utili
8.2. Importers, traders and users
sation in the EU is low, the issue is not one of a problem
of supply as the Union industry has adequate available
(106) Comments were received from importers and other
capacity. In any case the facilities being closed in Belgium
interested parties following final disclosure, however no
did not manufacture OCS. Security of supply is of course
new comments or information were received regarding
important, but the proposed duties in this case are not
the interest of importers, traders or users. Therefore the
designed to stop supply of OCS from China, merely to
provisional findings in recitals (144) to (152) of the
prevent that supply being dumped onto the Union
provisional Regulation on the interest of these parties
market.
are hereby confirmed.

(101) In the absence of other comments on this point the
8.3. Conclusion on Union interest
findings of recitals (128) to (129) of the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.
(107) In view of the above, the provisional findings concerning
Union interest are confirmed, i.e. there are no compelling
reasons against the imposition of definitive measures on
7.2.6. Structural overcapacity
imports of OCS originating in the PRC.
(102) Some parties made further allegations that the Union
producers had a structural overcapacity, exceeding the
total Union consumption. The allegation had been
9. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
made at an earlier stage and was dealt with in recitals
(130) to (132) of the provisional Regulation. In the
9.1. Injury elimination level
absence of further evidence on this point, the conclusion
of these recitals is therefore confirmed.
(108) Following provisional disclosure, two interested parties
claimed that the data provided did not give sufficient
information and explanation on the calculation of the
undercutting and underselling margins. As explained in
7.2.7. Increase in cost of production
the provisional disclosure, some values were not
(103) Some parties made further allegations that a source of
disclosed due to confidentiality as the model concerned
injury to the Union producers was an increase in their
was only manufactured by one or two Union producers.
cost of production during the period considered. Data
At the stage of final disclosure ranges for these models
above shows that cost of production on average
were disclosed.
increased by only 6 %. In the absence of dumped
imports from the PRC the Union industry should have
been able to pass this increase on to its customers, yet
prices fell by 3 %. The claim that cost of production was
(109) Interested parties also challenged the use of 6,7 % as the
a cause of injury is therefore rejected.
target profit of the Union industry to calculate the injury
margin. They claimed that such a profit is overstated and
unrealistic given the current economic environment and
7.3. Conclusion on causation
that 2008 was not a representative year for profitability,

as it was an exceptional year for the steel industry.
(104) Based on the above, the provisional findings as set out in
recitals (133) to (136) of the provisional Regulation that
the dumped imports from the PRC caused material injury
to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6)
(110) This claim is rejected. Firstly, profitability for OCS was in
of the basic Regulation are maintained. The provisional
fact higher before 2008 than in 2008, which contradicts
findings about the effect of the other known factors
the claim that 2008 is an exceptional year. Secondly, the
which could have caused injury to the Union industry
target profit is the profit that can be obtained in the
were also confirmed: these factors are not such as to
absence of dumped imports. 2008 was the last year
break the causal link established between the dumped
where the full effects of the dumped imports had not
imports from the PRC and the injury suffered by the
yet been felt by the Union industry and therefore is a
Union industry.
suitable basis for establishing the target profit.

---

EN
15.3.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
73/13
(111) Following final disclosure interested parties again chal
(117) The Commission calculated the underselling margin by
lenged the use of 6,7 % as the target profit of the
adding the target profit to the cost of production of each
Union industry and the description of 2008 as a repre
product type. The methodology suggested by this
sentative year for profitability. This argument is rejected
interested party is flawed, because the average profit of
as no evidence as to what the profit of the Union
2,6 % was not automatically achieved on each sale of
industry would have been in 2008 in the absence of
each model by all companies from which the data was
the financial crisis was provided. In addition, their
used.
argument that the profit made by the Union industry
in 2008 was affected by the financial crisis, making
2008 an exceptional year, would seem to point to an
argument that the profit generated in 2008 is lower than
(118) One interested party also challenged the Commission's
the industry would expect in a normal year.
injury calculations. Given that that party did not have
full access to the data used by the Commission to
calculate the injury margin, it attempted to calculate it
on its own, based on its understanding of the price
difference on the market between aluminium-zinc alloy
(112) Interested parties also pointed to the fact that import
volumes from the PRC were at their lowest in 2009
coated and zinc coated substrate, which it had calculated
rather than in 2008. However, given that the Union
at USD 50 per MT. This 'recalculation', based on
industry was not profitable in 2009, it is impossible to
incomplete data, resulted in a lower injury margin than
use 2009 data to set a target profit for the Union
that which the Commission had calculated and disclosed.
industry.
(119) Their arguments were rejected because following an
analysis of the full data from both the exporting
(113) CISA have further alleged that the profit to unrelated
producers and the Union industry, the alleged price
customers in 2008 cannot be used as the target profit
difference could not be found. Consequently, it should
because that year shows the largest price difference
be underlined that the data which the interested party
between related and unrelated sales. This argument was
was using was incomplete and thus could not be relied
rejected, as this price difference is not relevant to the
upon to reproduce the Commission's injury calculations.
calculation of the profit of sales to unrelated customers.
(120) Recitals (154) to (158) of the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.
(114) CISA then proposed that the target profit for sales of
OCS to unrelated parties in the Union be based on the
average overall profit for the multinational corporation
ArcelorMittal for the years 2010 and 2011. This was
9.2. Definitive measures
rejected as a reliable source for the profit on OCS in
the Union in the absence of dumped imports, because
(121) In view of the conclusions reached with regard to
taking the profit of the entire worldwide ArcelorMittal
dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, and in
group is clearly not representative of profit on sales of
accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, a
OCS in the Union.
definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed on
imports of OCS originating in the PRC at the level of
the lower of the dumping and injury margins found, in
accordance with the lesser duty rule. In this case, the
(115) Interested parties also challenged the post-importation
duty rate should accordingly be set at the level of the
costs used to calculate the provisional duties as they
injury found.
were based on the data from only one importer. The
Commission verified a second importer at a later stage
and their data has been now used to calculate post-
importation costs. By using an average of the two
(122) Seven companies that were not sampled cooperated with
companies these costs have now dropped slightly,
the anti-dumping investigation, but not the parallel anti-
thereby increasing the injury margins accordingly.
subsidy one. For these companies, the anti-dumping duty

rate is set at zero. In the anti-subsidy investigation, these
companies will be subject to the residual duty.
(116) One interested party challenged the Commission's
methodology for the calculation of the underselling
(123) In order to ensure equal treatment between any new
margin. However, this challenge was based on the
exporting producers and the cooperating companies
erroneous assumption that the Commission had
not included in the sample, provision should be made
calculated the underselling margin by removing the
for the weighted average duty imposed on the latter
average profit of the Union industry in the IP (2,6 %)
companies to be applied to any new producers which
from the market price to get to the 'break-even point'
would otherwise not be entitled to a review pursuant to
(i.e. a price that would result in zero profit) and then
Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, as Article 11(4)
adding the target profit onto this 'break-even point'.
does not apply where sampling has been used.

---

L 73/14
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.3.2013
(124) On the basis of the above, the rate at which such duties will be imposed are set as follows:
Company Name
Subsidy
Dumping
Injury margin Countervailing Anti-dumping
margin (%)
margin (%)
(%)
duty (%)
duty (%)
Zhangjiagang Panhua Steel Strip Co.,
29,7 60,9 55,8 29,7 26,1
Ltd, Chongqing Wanda Steel Strip Co.,
Ltd, and Zhangjiagang Free Trade Zone
Jiaxinda International Trade Co., Ltd.
Zhejiang Huadong Light Steel Building
23,8 48,9 29,7 23,8 5,9
Material Co. Ltd and Hangzhou P.R.P.T.
Metal Material Company Ltd.
Union Steel China 26,8 50,9 13,7 13,7
0
Other co-operating companies in the
26,8 55,0 43,0 26,8 16,2
anti-dumping investigation (with the
exception of the companies subject to
the residual duty in the parallel anti-
subsidy Implementing Regulation (EU)
No 215/2013) ( 1 )
Non co-operating companies 44,7 68,1 58,3 44,7 13,6
( 1 ) See page 16 of this Official Journal
10. DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL
7225 99 00 11,
7225 99 00 91,
7226 99 70 11
and
DUTY
7226 99 70 91), and originating in the People’s Republic of
China.
(125) In view of the magnitude of the dumping margin found
and in the light of the level of the injury caused to the
Union industry, and taking into account that no
provisional measures were imposed in the parallel anti-
2. The
rate
of
the
definitive
anti-dumping
duty
shall
be
as
subsidy investigation, it is considered necessary that the
follows:
amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping

duty imposed by the provisional Regulation should be
definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the
provisional duty imposed. In these circumstances the
provisional duty at the rates set out in Article 1(2) of
TARIC
the provisional Regulation should be definitively
Company Duty
(%) additional
collected. However amounts provisionally secured for
code
products with a substrate with a metallic coating of
Union Steel China
0 B311
chromium or tin should be released,
Zhangjiagang Panhua Steel Strip Co., Ltd, 26,1 B312
Chongqing Wanda Steel Strip Co., Ltd, and
Zhangjiagang Free Trade Zone Jiaxinda Inter
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
national Trade Co., Ltd.
Zhejiang Huadong Light Steel Building Material
5,9 B313
Article 1
Co. Ltd and Hangzhou P.R.P.T. Metal Material
Company, Ltd.
1. A
definitive
anti-dumping
duty
is
hereby
imposed
on Angang Steel Company Limited 16,2 B314
imports of certain organic coated steel products, i.e. flat-rolled
products of non-alloy and alloy steel (not including stainless
Anyang Iron Steel Co., Ltd.
0 B315
steel) which are painted, varnished or coated with plastics on
at least one side, excluding so-called 'sandwich panels' of a kind
Baoshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.
0 B316
used for building applications and consisting of two outer metal
sheets with a stabilising core of insulation material sandwiched
Baoutou City Jialong Metal Works Co.,Ltd. 16,2 B317
between them, excluding those products with a final coating of
zinc-dust (a zinc-rich paint, containing by weight 70 % or more
Changshu Everbright Material Technology Co.,Ltd. 16,2 B318
of zinc), and excluding those products with a substrate with a
metallic coating of chromium or tin, currently falling within CN
Changzhou Changsong Metal Composite Material
16,2 B319
codes
ex 7210 70 80,
ex 7212 40 80,
ex 7225 99 00,
Co.,Ltd.
ex 7226 99 70 (TARIC codes 7210 70 80 11, 7210 70 80 91,
Cibao Modern Steel Sheet Jiangsu Co., Ltd.
0 B320
7212 40 80 01,
7212 40 80 21,
7212 40 80 91,

---

EN
15.3.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
73/15
TARIC
Article 2
Company Duty
(%) additional
code
Amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty
pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 845/2012 shall be definitively
Inner Mongolia Baotou Steel Union Co.,Ltd. 16,2 B321
collected at the rate set in Article 1 of that Regulation.
However, amounts provisionally secured for products with a
Jiangyin Ninesky Technology Co.,Ltd.
0 B322
substrate with a metallic coating of chromium or tin should
Jiangyin Zhongjiang Prepainted Steel Mfg Co.,Ltd.
0 B323
be released.
Jigang Group Co., Ltd. 16,2 B324
Maanshan Iron&Steel Company Limited 16,2 B325
Article 3
Qingdao Hangang Color Coated Sheet Co., Ltd. 16,2 B326
Where any producer from the People's Republic of China
Shandong Guanzhou Co., Ltd. 16,2 B327
provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that it did not
Shenzen Sino Master Steel Sheet Co.,Ltd. 16,2 B328
export the goods described in Article 1(1) originating in the
People's Republic of China during the period of investigation
Tangshan Iron And Steel Group Co.,Ltd. 16,2 B329
(1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011); that it is not related
to an exporter or producer subject to the measures imposed by
Tianjin Xinyu Color Plate Co.,Ltd. 16,2 B330
this Regulation; and that it has either actually exported the
goods concerned or has entered into an irrevocable contractual
Wuhan Iron And Steel Company Limited 16,2 B331
obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union after the
end of the period of investigation, the Council, acting by simple
Wuxi Zhongcai New Materials Co.,Ltd.
0 B332
majority on a proposal by the Commission, after consulting the
Advisory Committee, may amend Article 1(2) in order to
Xinyu Iron And Steel Co.,Ltd.
0 B333
attribute to that producer the duty applicable to cooperating
Zhejiang Tiannu Color Steel Co., Ltd. 16,2 B334
producers not in the sample.
All other companies 13,6 B999
Article 4
3. Unless
otherwise
specified,
the
provisions
in
force This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that
concerning customs duties shall apply.
of its 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, 11 March 2013.
For the Council
The President
E. GILMORE

---

Document Outline

• �

---