HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"L 37/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
11.2.2011
REGULATIONS
COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 118/2011
of 10 February 2011
imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain ring binder mechanisms originating
in Thailand
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
(4) The
Commission
sent
questionnaires
to
all
parties
known
to be concerned and to all other parties that requested so
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
within the deadlines set out in the Notice of initiation,
Union,
namely the complainant, other known Union producers,
the known exporting producer in Thailand, the represen
tatives of the country concerned, known importers and
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
known users. All parties who so requested within the
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
time limit and indicated that there were particular
from countries not members of the European Community ( 1 )
reasons why they should be heard were granted a
(the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 7 thereof,
hearing.
After consulting the Advisory Committee,
(5) Replies
to
the
questionnaires
and
other
submissions
were
received from one exporting producer in Thailand, the
Whereas:
complainant Union producer, five unrelated importers
and traders (including one also producing in the
Union) and one user.
1. PROCEDURE
1.1. Initiation
(6) The
Commission
sought
and
verified
all
the
information
it deemed necessary for the purpose of a provisional
(1) On
20
May
2010,
the
European
Commission
(the
determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union
‘Commission’) announced by a notice published in the
interest. Verification visits were carried out at the
Official Journal of the European Union ( 2 ) (Notice of
premises of the following companies:
initiation), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding
concerning imports into the Union of certain ring binder
mechanisms originating in Thailand (country concerned).
(a) Union producer:

— Ring Alliance Ringbuchtechnik GmbH, Vienna,
(2) The
anti-dumping
proceeding
was
initiated
following
a
complaint lodged on 6 April 2010 by Ring Alliance
Austria
Ringbuchtechnik GmbH (the complainant) on behalf of
producers representing a major proportion, in this case
(b) exporting producer in Thailand:
more than 50 % of the total Union production of certain
ring binder mechanisms. The complaint contained prima
— Thai Stationery Industry Co. Ltd., Bangkok,
facie evidence of dumping of the said product and of
Thailand
material injury resulting there from, which was
considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a
proceeding.
(c) companies related to the exporting producer in
Thailand:
1.2. Parties concerned by the proceeding
— Wah Hing Stationery Manufactory Limited, Hong
(3) The
Commission
officially
advised
the
complainant,
other
Kong
known Union producers, the known exporting producers
in Thailand, the representatives of the country concerned,
(d) importers in the Union:
known importers and known users of the initiation of
the proceeding. Interested parties were given the oppor
tunity to make their views known in writing and to
— Giardini S.r.l., Settimo Milanese, Italy
request a hearing within the time limit set out in the
Notice of initiation. All interested parties who so
— Rendol enterprises, Reilingen, Germany
requested and showed that there were particular
reasons why they should be heard were granted a
hearing.
— Industria Meccanica Lombarda srl, Offanengo,
Italy (also producer in the Union)
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
( 2 ) OJ C 131, 20.5.2010, p. 13.
— Winter Company Spain S.A., Spain

---

EN
11.2.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
37/3
1.3. Investigation period and period considered
asked to make themselves known to the Commission
and to provide, as specified in the Notice of initiation,
(7) The
investigation
of
dumping
and
injury
covered
the
basic information on their activities related to the
period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 (the ‘inves
product concerned (as defined in Section 2.1 above)
tigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of trends
during the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010.
relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period
from 1 January 2006 to the end of the IP (the injury
investigation period).
(13) After
examination
of the
information submitted
and
given the low number of importers which indicated
their willingness to co-operate, it was decided that
2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
sampling was not necessary.
2.1. Product concerned
(8) The
product
concerned
is
ring
binder
mechanisms
which
consist of at least two steel sheets or wires with at least
4. DUMPING
four half-rings made of steel wire fixed on them and
(14) One
company
in
Thailand
replied
to
the
questionnaire
which are kept together by a steel cover, they can be
for exporting producers. A company involved in the sales
opened either by pulling the half rings or with a small
of the product concerned and located in Hong Kong
steel trigger mechanism fixed to the ring binder
related to this exporting producer also replied to the
mechanism, originating in Thailand (‘the product
questionnaire. On the basis of import data reported by
concerned’ or ‘RBM’) and currently falling within CN
Eurostat, the exporting producer (together with its related
code ex 8305 10 00. Lever-arch mechanisms, falling
company) accounted for all Thai exports to the Union.
within the same CN code, are not included in the
scope of this investigation.
4.1. Normal value
(9)
RBM are used to file different kinds of documents or
papers. They are used, inter alia, by producers of ring
(15) The
investigation
revealed
that
the
exporting
producer
provided incomplete and incorrect information with
binders, technical manuals, photo and stamp albums,
regard to significant elements of its cost of production,
catalogues and brochures.
such as the apparent nickel metal consumption and
apparent consumption of other raw materials.
Furthermore, other data reported with regard to
(10) A
large
number
of
different
models
of
RBM
were
sold
production costs and production capacities were incon
during the IP in the European Union. The models varied
sistent and could not be reconciled. Finally, the investi
by size, shape and number of rings, the size of the base
gation revealed that there was a related company located
plate and the system to open the rings (pull open or
in the People's Republic of China, which contrary to
opening trigger). Given that all of them have the same
what was originally claimed by the exporting producer,
physical and technical characteristics, and that the models
was involved in the sales and administration of the
of RBM can, within certain ranges, replace each other, the
product concerned. The reported costs did not include
Commission established that all RBM constitute one
the relevant costs of this related company and were
single product for the purpose of the present proceeding.
therefore considered incomplete.
2.2. Like product
(16) On the basis of the above, it was concluded that the cost
data submitted were not a sufficiently accurate basis for
(11) The
product
produced
and
sold
on
the
domestic
market
the determination of normal value. It was therefore
of Thailand, as well as the product manufactured and
considered to base findings at least partially on facts
sold in the Union by the Union producers were found
available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic
to have the same basic physical and technical char
Regulation.
acteristics as well as the same basic uses. They are
therefore provisionally considered as alike within the
meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
(17) The
company
was
informed
forthwith
and
was
given
the
opportunity to provide further explanations, in
3. SAMPLING
accordance with Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation.
However, the explanations given by the company were
3.1. Sampling of unrelated importers
unsatisfactory since it did not clarify the inconsistencies
found. The company could also not refute the evidence
(12) In view of the apparent high number of unrelated
showing that they had submitted incomplete, incorrect
importers, sampling was envisaged in the Notice of
and misleading information. Moreover, the company
initiation in accordance with Article 17 of the basic
failed to submit essential information of the above
Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to
mentioned related company established in the People's
decide whether sampling would be necessary and if so,
Republic of China involved in the production and sales
to select a sample, all known unrelated importers were
of the product concerned.

---

L 37/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
11.2.2011
(18) In view of the above, it was considered that the normal
(26) On the basis of the above methodology the provisional
value for the exporting producer should provisionally be
dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF
determined on the basis of facts available, in accordance
Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:
with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.
Exporting producer Dumping
margin
(19) In
the
absence
of
any
other
more
reliable
information,
the normal value was provisionally calculated on the
Thai Stationery Industry Co. Ltd.,
17,2 %
basis of the information relating to the cost of manu
Bangkok, Thailand
facturing in Thailand as provided in the complaint. In
accordance with Article 18(5) of the basic Regulation,
this information was cross-checked with verified
(27) Since
the
cooperating
exporting
producer
accounted
for
information obtained during the investigation, including
all Thai exports to the Union of the product concerned,
that relating to costs of personnel and energy in
it was considered that the residual dumping margin
Thailand. Where considered appropriate, the information
should be set at the level of dumping margin found
provided in the complaint was corrected by the verified
for this cooperating exporting producer, i.e. 17,2 %.
information obtained during the investigation.
5. DEFINITION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY
(20) A
reasonable
amount
for
SG&A
and
profits,
respectively
16 % and 8 % were added to the manufacturing cost as
(28) During
the
investigation
period
RBM
were
manufactured
established above, on the basis of the information
in the EU by the following producers:
submitted in the complaint.
— Ring Alliance Ringbuchtechnik GmbH, Wien, Austria,
4.2. Export price
(21) The
exporting
producer
made
export
sales
to
the
Union
— Industria Meccanica Lombarda srl, Offanengo, Italy.
through its related trading company located outside the
Union.
(29) The
first
producer
is
the
applicant
and
cooperated
in
the
investigation. The investigation has established that the
applicant represented more than 50 % of the total Union
(22) The
export
price
was
established
on
the
basis
of
the
prices of the product when sold by the related trading
production of RBM in the IP.
company to the Union, i.e. to an independent buyer, in
accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation on
the basis of prices actually paid or payable.
(30) The
second
(smaller)
producer
is
also
an
importer
of
RBM from Thailand and opposed the proceedings. On
the basis of the information provided by the company, it
was found that during the overall period considered for
4.3. Comparison
the injury analysis the volume of its purchases of Thai
products was on average comparable to the volume of its
(23) The
comparison
between
normal
value
and
export
price
own production.
was made on an ex-works basis.
(31) On the basis of the above it is considered that, pursuant
(24) For
the
purpose
of
ensuring
a
fair
comparison
between
to Article 4(1)(a), the second producer should be
the normal value and the export price, due allowance in
excluded from the definition of the Union industry,
the form of adjustments was made for differences
and therefore only the applicant producer should
affecting prices and price comparability in accordance
constitute the Union industry within the meaning of
with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Adjustments
Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation. It is
for differences in transport and insurance costs and credit
hereinafter referred to as the ‘Union industry’.
costs have been made where applicable and justified.
(32) It should be noted that in the past, the Union industry
4.4. Dumping margin
was originally composed of two different producers
(Koloman Handler — Austria and Robert Krause —
(25) Pursuant
to
Article
2(11)
and
(12)
of
the
basic
Regu
Germany) that went bankrupt and taken over by an
lation, the dumping margin for the cooperating
Austrian group. These companies were subject to a
exporting producer was established on the basis of a
significant restructuring and the current structure ‘Ring
comparison of a weighted average normal value by
Alliance Ringbuchtechnik GmbH’ was created in 2003.
product type with a weighted average export price by
The head offices are located in Austria while production
product type as established above.
takes place in Hungary.

---

EN
11.2.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
37/5
6. INJURY
6.1. Union consumption
(33) Consumption
was
established
on
the
basis
of
the
following
figures:
— the verified total sales on the Union market reported by the Union industry and the other EU
producer,
— the verified total EU export volume of the cooperating exporting producer in Thailand for the
periods requested in the questionnaire (the years 2008, 2009 and IP), and Eurostat for the other
years,
— Eurostat for imports from the other third countries.
(34) On this basis, the EU consumption of RBM developed as follows:
2006 2007 2008 2009 IP
Consumption (000pces) 100 100 111 93 95
Source: verified questionnaire replies and Eurostat.
(35) The
consumption
declined
by
5
%
during
the
overall
injury
investigation
period
( 1 ). It should however
be noted that after an increase of around 10 % between 2006 and 2008, the consumption dropped
by 15 % in the subsequent period.
6.2. Imports from Thailand
(a) Import volume and market share
2006 2007 2008 2009 IP
Import volume 100 65 153 116 119
Market share 12,0
% 7,8
% 16,5
% 15,0
% 15,0
%
Source: verified questionnaire reply and Eurostat.
(36) Imports from Thailand for the period 2008-IP are based on the questionnaire reply of the co-
operating exporting producer — the sole known Thai exporter — and based on Eurostat data for
the other years. On this basis, it was established that total import volume of RBM from Thailand
increased by almost 20 % between 2006 and the IP. The level of imports however fluctuated
significantly during this period, and the most important increase took place between 2007 and
2008, when imports more than doubled.
(37) The
Thai
market
shares
followed
an
overall
increasing
trend
and
gained
3
points
between
2006
and
the IP. Similarly to the sales volume, the market shares reached a peak in 2008, at a level of 16,5 %.
(b) Price of the imports of the product concerned/undercutting
2006 2007 2008 2009 IP
import price 100 103 123 113 113
( 1 ) Only ranges are given in order to protect confidentiality of sole Complainant.

---

L 37/6
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
11.2.2011
(38) Import prices first increased by more than 20 % between 2006 and 2008 and declined subsequently.
(39) Despite an overall increase of 13 % during the injury investigation period, the Thai prices significantly
undercut the Union producers’ prices during the IP. The price comparison for corresponding models,
duly adjusted where necessary, indeed showed that on average import prices were more than 30 %
below the Union industry’s sales price during the IP. A comparison of the average price level during
the other years suggests comparable undercutting rates for the years 2006-2009.
(40) The absolute level of Thai import prices was also systematically below the price of other imports and
— to a larger extent — below the price of the other Union producer.
6.3. Economic situation of the Union industry ( 1 )
(a) Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation
2006 2007 2008 2009 IP
Production 100 130 131 80 83
Production capacity 100 110 115 80 75
Capacity utilisation 79
% 94
% 90
% 79
% 88
%
(41) During the overall period, both the production and the production capacity decreased respectively by
almost 20 % and 25 %. The increasing capacity utilisation should only be seen as the result of a
reduction of the production capacity by 25 % during the same period. This is mainly the result of lay-
offs (see employment below).
(42) It should however be noted that production volume and capacity first improved until 2008, and then
decreased significantly.
(b) Stocks
2006 2007 2008 2009 IP
Closing stock 100 137 153 124 126
(43) In the injury investigation period, the Union industry's stocks increased overall by 26 %. A significant
part of the RBM production consists of standard products, and the Union industry has to maintain a
certain level of stock in order to be in a position to swiftly satisfy the demand of its customers. Any
increase of the closing stock above the average level nevertheless indicates difficulties to sell the
products.
(c) Sales volume, market share and growth
2006 2007 2008 2009 IP
EU sales volume 100 105 113 79 77
Market shares 29,6
% 31,1
% 30,2
% 25,2
% 24,0
%
(44) The Union industry’s sales volume on the EU market decreased by 23 % over the period analysed,
which corresponded to declining market shares from 29,6 % to 24,0 %, i.e. a drop of more than 5
points. Sales volume and market shares in fact deteriorated as from 2008.
( 1 ) The information is based on the verified data submitted by the Union industry in its questionnaire reply and is given
in index numbers (2006 = 100) or in a range whenever it is necessary to preserve confidentiality.

---

EN
11.2.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
37/7
(45) The
above
development
overall
indicates
an
absence
of
Union
industry
growth
between
2006
and
the IP.
(d) Sales prices
2006 2007 2008 2009 IP
Sales price 100 99 99 110 107
(46) The
Union
Industry's
weighted
average
selling
price
was
relatively
stable
until
2008.
It
then
increased
by 10 % in 2009 to decrease by 3 percentage points in the IP. This price increase is the result of a
combination of two factors: a change of product mix due to the decreasing sales volume of the more
standardised — and cheaper — products, and the Union industry’s attempt to compensate for the
losses incurred in 2008. The latter was however not successful since the Union industry continued to
operate at a loss in the subsequent period (see below).
(e) Profitability, return on investments, cash-flow
2006 2007 2008 2009 IP
P&L % turnover 100
9 135 167 146
Cash-flow 100 –
502 –
685 –
136 –
291
Return on net assets 100 87 104 146 176
(47) The
Union
industry
was
loss
making
during
the
overall
injury
investigation
period,
and
the
above
trend shows an overall increase of the level of losses. While the situation slightly improved in 2007
(it became nearly break even), it however deteriorated as from 2008. While the decline in cash-flow
could somehow be limited, it also remained negative as from 2007. The return on net assets was also
negative during the overall period and constantly declined between 2006 and the IP.
(f) Investments and ability to raise capital
2006 2007 2008 2009 IP
Investments 100 45 50 17 26
(48) Investments
followed
a
sharp
decreasing
trend,
i.e.
–
75
%
during
the
overall
injury
investigation
period.
(49) As
stated
above,
given
the
weak
financial
situation
of
Union
industry
it
can
be
concluded
that
its
ability to raise capital from independent sources was seriously affected.
(g) Employment, productivity and wages
2006 2007 2008 2009 IP
Employment 100 111 118 99 87
Productivity 100 117 111 81 95
Wages 100 106 113 92 71
(50) During the overall period employment (full-time units) decreased by 13 % and the most important
decline took place after the year 2008 when employment reached a peak. Wages mostly followed the
same trend.

---

L 37/8
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
11.2.2011
(51) Productivity,
measured
in
thousand
of
pieces
produced
per
employee
during
the
period,
generally
followed the same trend as employment, but the decline could be limited during the IP.
(h) Magnitude of the actual margin of dumping
(52) On the basis of the best facts available, the investigation has established the existence of dumping
during the IP of 17,2 %, which is substantial.
(i) Recovery from the effect of past dumping
(53) The
Union
industry
has
been
suffering
from
the
effects
of
dumped
imports
for
several
years.
It
could
nevertheless benefit from relatively effective measures until the year 2008, but the situation
deteriorated again thereafter. This is further explained in the section related to Union interest below.
6.4. Conclusion
(54) The economic situation of the Union industry clearly deteriorated between 2006 and the IP. This was
especially characterised by a significant decrease of production and sale volume (respectively – 17 %,
– 13 %), which also resulted in decline of market share from 29,6 % to 24 %. The financial situation
of the Union Industry was also affected. The level of losses incurred by the company indeed
increased, and both cash-flow and return on net assets followed the same negative trend. The
attempt of the Union industry to limit the level of the losses by increasing its prices in 2009 was
not successful, and the situation even worsened.
(55) Consequently, the investments were reduced to their minimum level, and the company had no choice
but to lay off a substantial number of people in order to face the situation.
(56) It should nevertheless be noted that during the overall injury investigation period the situation of the
Union industry somewhat improved between 2006 and 2008. Indeed, during this period, production,
sales volume, and employment followed and increasing trend. Those indicators however significantly
dropped since 2009. The profitability indicators on the other hand remained negative during the
overall period; although profitability was close to break even in 2007.
(57) Considering the above, it is provisionally concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury
within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.
7. CAUSALITY
7.1. Introduction
(58) In accordance with Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the material
injury suffered by the Union industry has been caused by the dumped imports from the country
concerned. Furthermore, known factors other than the dumped imports, which might have injured
the Union industry, were examined to ensure that any injury caused by those other factors was not
attributed to the dumped imports.
7.2. Effect of the dumped imports
(59) It is to be noted that the Union market is characterised by a relatively small number of sources of
supply (two in the Union, one in India, one in Thailand and still some supply from China) and that
the market is therefore quite transparent in terms of prices, through price quotations. Furthermore a
significant part of the demand in the EU concerns standard types of RBM, for which price is by far a
decisive factor when purchasing the product.

---

EN
11.2.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
37/9
(60) In this context, the investigation showed that the volume of imports of RBM from Thailand increased
by almost 20 % during the injury investigation period, and reached a market share of 15 % during
the IP. The Union industry lost a significant volume of sales during the same period. Furthermore it
was established that, during the IP, RBM from Thailand undercut the Union industry's prices by more
than 30 %, which is very significant for this kind of product.
(61) The combination of the important volume of import and of the low price level led to a significant
price pressure on the Union market. In the absence of dumping, Thai prices would have been — at
least during the IP — almost 20 % higher than their actual level, and this could have meant an
overall higher Union market price.
(62) Given their volume and the level of their prices, it is thus considered that the dumped imports
undermined the attempt of the Union industry to regain profit, or at least reduce its losses, by
increasing its sales quantities and/or prices to a more adequate level during the period 2009-IP. The
continued pressure exercised by the low-priced dumped imports from Thailand on the Union market
thus resulted in the loss in sales volume, market shares, depressed prices and consequently the loss in
profitability of the Union industry.
(63) It
should
be
recalled
that
in
a
recent
expiry
review
investigation
( 1 ) it was concluded that the industry
was still in a very precarious situation in 2008 and still extremely sensitive to any further dumped
imports.
(64) In view of the above it was provisionally concluded that the dumped imports from Thailand had a
negative impact on the economic situation of the Union industry.
7.3. Effect of other factors
7.3.1. Contraction in demand on the Union market
(65) The demand on the Union market increased by 10 % in 2008, but then significantly declined in the
subsequent year, by around 15 %. This should be seen in the context of the financial crisis, and the
decision of many companies to cut general costs, including for stationary items. The overall ring
binder sector has suffered from this situation: Indian and Thai imports decreased in absolute volume
as well as the Union industry’s sales.
(66) It
should
however
be
noted
that
in
relative
terms,
the
Union
industry
suffered
more
than
other
players since its market share declined from 30,2 % to 25,2 % between 2008 and 2009. Given the
fact that the ring binder industry has important fixed costs, a loss of volume of sales had a negative
impact on the financial situation of the applicant. However, the decrease in consumption should be
seen in conjunction with the development of the dumped imports from Thailand. Indeed, Thai
imports had an important market share that represented nearly three times the quantity
corresponding to the decrease in consumption.
(67) From
this
point
of
view,
it
can
be
concluded
that
the
decrease
in
consumption,
which
had
been
caused by the economic crisis, might have contributed to the material injury suffered by the Union
industry. However, if there was an effect this effect had certainly been considerably reinforced by the
imports subject to investigation.
7.3.2. Imports from other third countries
(68) RBM are also produced and exported from India and China. These imports developed as follows:
( 1 ) Implementing Regulation of the Council (EU) No 157/2010 (OJ L 49, 26.2.2010, p. 1).

---

L 37/10
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
11.2.2011
2006 2007 2008 2009 IP
India
import volume 100 93 102 88 91
market shares 47,6
% 44,3
% 43,5
% 45,2
% 45,3
%
average price 100 99 118 116 113
China
import volume 100 91 153 150 151
market shares 3,5
% 3,1
% 4,8
% 5,6
% 5,5
%
average price 100 98 90 85 86
Source: Eurostat.
(69) There
is
only
one
exporting
producer
of
RBM
in
India,
7.3.3. Export performance of the Union industry
and its import volume decreased by almost 10 % during
the injury investigation period. India nevertheless
(72) Export
performance
was
also
examined
as
one
of
the
accounts for a significant portion of the Union market
known factors other than the dumped imports, which
since it held on average 45 % of market shares during the
could at the same time have injured the Union industry.
injury investigation period. Furthermore, Indian import
prices increased overall by 13 %, at a level slightly
above the Thai prices. Given its prevailing position on
(73) The exports of the Union industry represented on
the Union market, and in view of its competitive import
average around 5 % of its total sales of RBM during
price, India is a significant competitor for the Union
the injury investigation period and remained relatively
industry. However, when looking at the trend described
stable. It is thus provisionally concluded that this could
above, i.e. decreasing volume at increasing prices, there is
not have caused any injury to the Union industry.
no indication that India would have contributed to the
deterioration of the situation of the Union industry in the
IP. Finally, it should be noted that a certain portion of
7.4. Conclusion on causation
the Indian imports, i.e. around one third, has been
directly purchased and sold on the Union market by a
(74) The
above analysis demonstrated that imports from
distributor related to the Union industry.
Thailand caused material injury to the Union industry

during the IP, given their volume and the level of their
prices. Imports indeed increased in absolute terms, they
were found to be dumped and their price level was found
to be significantly below the prices charged by the Union
(70) Chinese
imports have been subject to anti-dumping
industry on the Union market for similar product types.
duties ranging from 51,2 % to 78,8 % since 2004. The
In this price sensitive market, where the number of
volume of the Chinese imports increased by around 50 %
suppliers is relatively limited and the market quite trans
between 2006 and IP, i.e. a market share gain of 2 points
parent, an undercutting rate of more than 30
%
from 3,5 % to 5,5 %. Even if Chinese import prices
definitively had a significant impact on market prices.
followed a decreasing trend during the overall injury
investigation period, their overall level however
remained far above the Thai prices. And this is even
(75) The
examination
of
the
other
known
factors
which
could
without taking into account the application of the anti-
have caused injury to the Union industry revealed that
dumping duties. It is thus concluded that these imports
the contraction in demand could have played a role.
did not contribute to the deterioration of the situation of
However, despite the negative effect of the decreasing
the Union industry in the IP.
demand on the Union market, it is provisionally
concluded that this factor was not such as to break the
causal link established between the dumped imports
from Thailand and the material injury suffered by the
(71) On the basis of the above, it is provisionally concluded
Union industry. The contraction in demand should
that the imports from these third countries has not
indeed be seen in conjunction with the effects of
contributed, at least not beyond a marginal extent, to
dumped imports which actually exacerbated the
the material injury suffered by the Union industry.
negative impact of the financial crisis.

---

EN
11.2.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
37/11
(76) Based
on
the
above
analysis,
which
has
properly
distin
modified RBM ( 3 ). It should finally be mentioned that
guished and separated the effects of all known factors on
imports of RBM from Thailand were subject to two
the situation of the Union industry from the injurious
different anti-circumvention investigations, in 2004 and
effects of the dumped imports, it is provisionally
2008, and to a new anti-dumping investigation in 2008.
concluded that the dumped imports from Thailand
While these investigations did not lead to any measures
have caused material injury to the Union industry
the current investigation has clearly established that
within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic
the Thai exporter provided false information in his
Regulation.
questionnaire reply.
8. UNION INTEREST
(82) It
should
be
noted
that
RBM
are
imported
into
the
Union
market either by distributors, agents or directly by users,
8.1. Preliminary remark
i.e. the companies producing binders.
(77) In
accordance
with
Article
21
of
the
basic
Regulation,
it
was examined whether, despite the provisional
conclusion on injurious dumping, compelling reasons
(83) Finally, it should be recalled that the number of
existed for concluding that it was not in the Union
producers of RBM supplying the Union market is
interest to adopt provisional anti-dumping measures in
relatively limited. Indeed, in addition to the two
this particular case. For this purpose, and in accordance
producers in the EU, there exist only one known
with Article 21(1) of the basic Regulation, the likely
producer in Thailand, one in India, and some in China,
impact of possible measures on all parties involved in
the latter being subject to anti-dumping measures as
this proceeding and also the likely consequences of not
explained above. Both the exporting producer in
taking measures were considered on the basis of all
Thailand and in India are owned by Hong Kong based
evidence submitted.
companies, respectively Wah Hing Stationary, a trader of
RBM having a production site in China, and World Wide
Stationary, which has a supply agreement with Bensons,
a distributor owned by the Union industry.
(78) In order to assess the likely impact of the measures, all
interested parties were given the opportunity to make
their views known pursuant to Article 21(2) of the
basic Regulation. The applicant Union producer and
8.3. Union industry
four unrelated importers replied to the questionnaire.
(84) It
is
recalled
that
some
years
ago
the
Union
industry
The other Union producer, which is also an importer,
already faced serious economic difficulties, amongst
provided some information and one user submitted a
other things because of unfair traded imports, and had
questionnaire reply.
to restructure in order to ensure its continued existence
as explained below.
8.2. Description of the Union market
(85) The
Union
industry
actually
consisted
of
two
producers
(79) In order to have a better understanding of all the various
when the first anti-dumping complaint was lodged in
interests at stake, it is considered important to first
1995: Koloman Handler GmbH, an Austrian company,
describe the main characteristics of the market.
and Robert Krause GmbH & Co, a German company.
Those two companies were present on the EU RBM
market already for a long time but their economic
situation became so bad that they both had to file for
(80) Anti-dumping
measures
were
imposed
for
the
first
time
bankruptcy. While Robert Krause GmbH filed for bank
against imports of certain ring binder mechanisms ori-
ruptcy in 1998 and its successor company had to do the
ginating in China in 1997 ( 1 ). The original duty rate was
same in 2002, Koloman Hander became insolvent in
increased 3 years later following an interim review. Those
2001. Both companies were taken over by another
measures have indeed been recently extended for a
company, SX Bürowaren Produktions- und Handels
second time following an expiry review establishing
GmbH, which in turn was acquired by Ring Alliance
that dumped and injurious imports would otherwise
Ringbuchtechnik GmbH, the applicant in this case.
resume ( 2 ).
(86) Since
then
the
activity
has
been
restructured
in
order
to
(81) Several
investigations
established
that
measures
against
better compete worldwide, but especially on the core
China were circumvented, and they were thus extended
market of the applicant, i.e. the EU market. This restruc
to Vietnam and Lao People's Democratic Republic,
turing included the acquisition of Bensons, a well-
respectively in 2004 and 2006, and the scope of the
established trader of RBM with companies located in
measures also had to be extended to certain slightly
the Netherlands, Singapore, the United Kingdom and
the USA.
( 1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 119/97 (OJ L 22, 24.1.1997, p. 1).
( 2 ) Regulation (EU) No 157/2010.
( 3 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 818/2008 (OJ L 221, 19.8.2008, p. 1).

---

L 37/12
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
11.2.2011
(87) The
efforts
undertaken
by
the
industry
to
improve
its
switched to an EU distributor. It is thus concluded that
situation have however been undermined given that the
any imposition of measures would not affect the
positive effects of the measures against unfair imports
situation of those two importers.
have been diluted by absorption and circumvention
practices, as explained above. As a consequence, despite
significant improvement in particular until the year
2008, the situation of the industry remained fragile, as
concluded in the investigation leading to the
(93) Another
importer,
representing
less
than
10
%
of
the
prolongation of the anti-dumping measures against
total Thai imports, claimed that if measures were
China.
imposed against Thailand, it would have no alternative

sources of supply and would be forced to end their RBM
activity. In this respect, it should firstly be recalled that
the objective of anti-dumping measures is however not
to exclude any imports on the Union market, but rather
(88) The
current
investigation
concluded
that
in
the
recent
to allow imports to continue, albeit at non-dumped
years the Union industry is again suffering material
prices. This importer could thus continue to import
injury and that this was caused by dumped imports
RBM from Thailand, although subject to the payment
originating in Thailand.
of anti-dumping duties, and could partially or totally
pass-on this cost increase to its customers.
(89) Through
its restructuring efforts the Union industry
proved it is a viable industry which is still in a
(94) It
is
however
recognised
that
this
could
not
so
easily
be
position to supply an important share of the EU
achieved in view of the price sensitivity of the product
market. It however needs additional and efficient
and the competition from imports from other countries
protection against dumped imports from all sources in
such as India. Moreover, given the structure of the Union
order to reach a solid and healthy situation. Almost 60
market and the limited number of producers worldwide,
jobs were lost between 2008 and the IP, and the Union
it is indeed likely that this importer may face difficulties
industry made important losses in the last years. Without
to switch to other sources of supply. It should however
measures against Thai unfair traded imports it cannot be
be noted that the portion of the RBM sales of the
excluded that the applicant will be forced to cease its
company as compared to its total turnover decreased
activity and more than 160 further jobs are at risk.
during the injury investigation period, from around
40 % to 25 %, and, more importantly, the investigation
revealed that the RBM activity has generated significant
losses in the last years. In other words, there are doubts
already today concerning the viability of the RBM
(90) Given
the
fact
that
imports
from
Thailand
were
found
to
business of this importer.
cause material injury to the Union industry, that the
Union industry has made all necessary restructuring
efforts and is able to compete on a market where
imports are fairly traded, it is concluded that it would
be in the interest of the Union industry to impose
(95) The fourth importer also claimed that in case of
provisional measures against imports of RBM from
imposition of measures it would have to stop trading
Thailand.
RBM because of the lack of alternative sources of
supply. Sales of RBM in this case however only
accounted for a very minor portion of the total
turnover of the company during the IP, with only one
person dealing with the product concerned, and it is very
8.4. Importers and traders
likely that the company could relatively easily maintain
its overall activity even without trading RBM, if the
(91) Following the initiation of the investigation five
importers, including the second Union producer, made
imposition of measures would make it unavoidable.
themselves known and provided either a questionnaire
reply or other information. Those companies accounted
for 75 % of the imports of RBM from Thailand during
the investigation period.
(96) It is thus concluded that even if the imposition of
measures may indeed negatively affect the situation of
the two importers above, it would however not
significantly affect their overall economic activities.
(92) One
of
the
above
importers,
representing
around
20
%
of
the overall Thai imports, decided to end all its activities
related to RBM after the investigation period. For a
second importer, the sales volume of RBM has been
(97) The situation of the last importer is less obvious because
divided by three during the overall injury investigation
around half of its sales of RBM are of Thai products (they
period and only represented a minor portion of its
represent a significant proportion of the total EU imports
overall turnover during the IP (around 1 %). Moreover
of RBM from Thailand), the other half being produced in
the latter ceased purchases from Thailand in 2008 and
the EU. Moreover, even if the company is mainly selling

---

EN
11.2.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
37/13
lever arch mechanism, sales of RBM represent a non-
significant negative impact on the situation of the last
negligible portion of the total turnover of the company
importer, i.e. the other Union producer, but the latter has
(around 15 %). These sales are also considered crucial by
largely benefited from the low priced and dumped
the company because its customers often require
imports from Thailand in the past, and the negative
suppliers being able to supply a full range of products.
impact would essentially result from the competition
with imports from India, which cannot be considered
unfair competition.
(98) A significant part of the activity of the company thus rely
on imports of RBM from Thailand, and in particular the
less sophisticated products which are necessary to offer a
complete products range, an important condition to
8.5. Users
maintain a sufficiently wide number of customers.
According to the company, any imposition of measures
(104) One user replied to the questionnaire which revealed that
may result in the end of its overall activity, and the loss
around three quarters of its purchases of RBM were
of around 170 jobs. It should however be noted that this
imports from countries other than Thailand, the rest
is the headcount for the total company and that it is
being more or less equally distributed between the
estimated that the RBM activity represents less than 30
Union industry and Thailand.
people.
(105) This user claimed that in case of imposition of measures,
(99) In
this
respect
it
should
first
be
underlined
that
this
company managed to improve its situation on the
the sources of supply would be limited and a monop
RBM market in the last years — its overall market
olistic situation would appear. This is based on the alle
share of imported products and own production
gation that the Union industry and its related trader
increased from 9 % to 15 % during the injury investi
Bensons, an importer of Indian products, would
gation period — because it benefited from cheap and
become the quasi unique source of supply on the
dumped imports.
Union market. Some of the importers supported the

same arguments.
(100) Secondly, it could be argued that this company could —
at least partly — continue to import from Thailand,
(106) In this respect, it should firstly be noted that the fact that
albeit at non-dumped prices, or even see the measures
the number of suppliers on the Union market is limited
as an opportunity to increase its production, and/or
is not as such a reason not to impose anti-dumping
production capacity, and sales of its own produced
measures in order to remedy unfair trade. It is indeed
RBM. The company itself admitted this possibility,
considered that in the absence of measures the Union
although with the nuance that it would still have to
industry is likely to disappear, and this producer still
face the strong competition with Indian products, that
represents 25 % of the sales on the EU market and can
are however imported by a variety of companies and not
deliver specialised and standard products in the EU. It
only by the trader related to the Union industry.
would thus also be in the interest of users that this
industry continues to operate on the market.
(101) It is clear that the company would indeed face a strong
competition with Indian products which were on average
during the IP only slightly more expensive than the Thai
(107) Secondly, despite the imposition of measures, it is not
imports (+ 6 %). However, as long as it is not demon
excluded that imports from Thailand, even if they may
strated that Indian imports are dumped, this should only
decrease in volume, will continue to be present on the
be considered as the result of fair competition.
Union market. Similarly, as explained above, the second
producer in the Union may also likely be in a position to
maintain or even expand its activity related to RBM.
(102) Finally, the negative impact of measures against Thailand
could nevertheless be somewhat limited if it would be
possible to reach a certain balance between an increase of
its own production and the continuation a certain level
(108) Finally, imports from India will continue and users,
of imports, although at non-dumped prices. It is also
including the sole co-operating user, will be able to
recalled that 75 % of the turnover of the company is
carry on sourcing RBM from this country. Even if the
made of sales of other products.
Union industry's related trader has a supply contract with
the Indian producers, it does not mean that it is the
exclusive importer/distributor of Indian products. On
the contrary. Other companies indeed also distribute
(103) Given, the above, it is provisionally concluded that the
Indian RBM on the Union market, and users can
imposition of provisional measures could only have a
directly purchase RBM from India. In this context

---

L 37/14
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
11.2.2011
it should be underlined that about two thirds of the
average import price of the exporting producer in
Indian exports to the EU are traded or purchased by
Thailand, with the non-injurious price of the product
companies other than Bensons, the trader related to the
types sold by the Union producers on the Union
Union industry.
market during the IP. Any difference resulting from this
comparison was then expressed as a percentage of the
average CIF import value of the compared types. The
(109) On the basis of the above, it was provisionally concluded
resulting injury margin was higher than the dumping
that the effect of the anti-dumping measures against
margin.
imports of RBM originating in Thailand will most likely
not have overall a significant negative impact on the
users of the product concerned.
9.2. Provisional measures
(115) In the light of the foregoing, and in accordance with
8.6. Conclusion on Union interest
Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, it is considered
that the provisional anti-dumping measures should be
(110) In view of the above, it is provisionally concluded that
overall, based on the information available concerning
imposed on imports originating in Thailand at the level
the Union interest, there are no compelling reasons
of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins in
against the imposition of provisional measures against
line with the lesser duty rule. In this case, the duty rate
imports of RBM originating in Thailand. Even if the
should accordingly be set at the level of the dumping
imposition of measures may have negative consequences
margins found.
on the situation of the other Union producer (see above
in the section on importers) which benefited from
dumped imports in the past, it is considered that this
(116) Consequently, the injury elimination margins and the
dumping margins and the proposed rates of the provi
does not overweight the need to remedy the negative
sional anti-dumping duty for Thailand, expressed on the
effect of unfair imports on the situation of the Union
CIF Union border price, customs duty unpaid, are as
industry.
follows:
9. PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
9.1. Injury elimination level
Exporting producer
Provisional AD duty
rate
(111) In view of the conclusions reached with regard to
Thai Stationery Industry Co. Ltd.,
17,2 %
dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, provi
Bangkok, Thailand
sional anti-dumping measures should be imposed in
order to prevent further injury being caused to the
All other companies 17,2
%
Union industry by the dumped imports.
10. FINAL PROVISION
(112) For the purpose of determining the level of these
measures, account was taken of the dumping margins
(117) In the interest of sound administration, a period should
found and the amount of duty necessary to eliminate
be fixed within which the interested parties which made
the injury sustained by the Union producers.
themselves known within the time limit specified in the
Notice of initiation may make their views known in
writing and request a hearing. Furthermore, it should
(113) When calculating the amount of duty necessary to
be stated that the findings concerning the imposition
remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it was
of duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are
considered that any measures should allow the Union
provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the
industry to cover its costs of production and to obtain
purpose of any definitive duty.
a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved by
producers of this type in the sector under normal
conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
dumped imports, on sales of the like product in the
Union. It is provisionally considered that a profit
margin of 5 % on turnover could be regarded as an
Article 1
appropriate minimum which the Union industry could
have expected to obtain in the absence of injurious
1. A
provisional
anti-dumping
duty
is
hereby
imposed
on
dumping. This is the same percentage that was used in
ring binder mechanisms currently falling within CN code
previous proceedings concerning the same product, and
ex 8305 10 00 (TARIC codes 8305 10 00 11, 8305 10 00 13,
there are no information indicating that circumstances
8305 10 00 19,
8305 10 00 21,
8305 10 00 23,
had changed in this respect and that this level would
8305 10 00 29,
8305 10 00 34,
8305 10 00 35
and
not be adequate in this case. On this basis, a non-
8305 10 00 36) and originating in Thailand. For the purpose
injurious price was calculated for the Union producers
of this Regulation, ring binder mechanisms shall consist of at
for the like product.
least two steel sheets or wires with at least four half-rings made
of steel wire fixed on them and which are kept together by a
steel cover. They can be opened either by pulling the half rings
(114) The necessary price increase was then determined on the
or with a small steel trigger mechanism fixed to the ring binder
basis of a comparison, per product type, of the weighted
mechanism.

---

EN
11.2.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
37/15
2. The
rate
of
the
provisional
anti-dumping
duty
applicable essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this
to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the
Regulation was adopted, make their views known in writing
products described in paragraph 1 shall be 17,2 %.
and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within 1
month of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
3. The
release
for
free
circulation
in
the
Union
of
the
product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the
Pursuant to Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the
provision of a security equivalent to the amount of the provi
parties concerned may comment on the application of this
sional duty.
Regulation within 1 month of the date of its entry into force.
4. Unless
otherwise
specified,
the
provisions
in
force
Article 3
concerning customs duties shall apply.
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its
Article 2
publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Without prejudice to Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No
Article 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of 6
1225/2009, interested parties may request disclosure of the
months.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 10 February 2011.
For the Commission
The President
José Manuel BARROSO

---