HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
28.4.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
108/3
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 405/2011
of 19 April 2011
imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed
on imports of certain stainless steel bars and rods originating in India
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
1.2. Subsequent procedure
(4)
Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and
considerations on the basis of which it was decided to
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
impose provisional countervailing measures (provisional
Union,
disclosure), several interested parties made written
submissions making their views known on the provi
sional findings. The parties who so requested were
granted the opportunity to be heard. The Commission
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of
continued to seek information it deemed necessary for its
11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from
definitive findings. The oral and written comments
countries not members of the European Community ( 1 ) (the
submitted by the interested parties were considered and
basic Regulation), and in particular Article 15(1) thereof,
taken into account, where appropriate.
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European
(5) All
parties
were
informed
of
the
essential
facts
and
Commission after having consulted the Advisory Committee,
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to
recommend the imposition of a definitive countervailing
duty on imports of certain stainless steel bars originating
in India and the definitive collection of the amounts
Whereas:
secured by way of the provisional duty. The parties
were also granted a period within which they could
make representations subsequent to this final disclosure.
1. PROCEDURE
1.1. Provisional measures
1.3. Parties concerned by the proceeding
(1) The
Commission,
by
Regulation
(EU)
No
1261/2010
( 2 )
(6)
In the absence of any comments concerning the parties
(the provisional Regulation) imposed a provisional
concerned by the proceeding, recitals 5 to 22 of the
countervailing duty on imports of certain stainless steel
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
bars originating in India.
2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND THE LIKE PRODUCT
(2) The
proceeding
was
initiated
following
a
complaint
lodged on 15 February 2010 by the European Federation
2.1. Product concerned
of Iron and Steel Industries (Eurofer) (the complainant)
on behalf of producers representing a major proportion,
(7)
It is recalled that, as stated in recital 24 of the provisional
in this case more than 25 %, of total Union production
Regulation, ‘the product concerned’ was defined as
of certain stainless steel bars.
stainless steel bars and rods, not further worked than
cold-formed or cold-finished, other than bars and rods
of circular cross-section of a diameter of 80 mm or
more, originating in India currently falling within CN
(3) As
set
out
in
recital
23
of
the
provisional
regulation,
the
codes
7222 20 21,
7222 20 29,
7222 20 31,
investigation of subsidisation and injury covered the
7222 20 39, 7222 20 81 and 7222 20 89.
period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 (‘investi
gation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of the trends
relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period
from 2007 to the end of the investigation period (period
(8) One
exporting
producer
in
India
claimed
that
SSB
of
a
considered).
circular cross section of a diameter of less than 80 mm
but outside the tolerance range of H6 to H11 should be
( 1 ) OJ L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93.
excluded from the investigation because it does not fall
( 2 ) OJ L 343, 29.12.2010, p. 57.
within the product scope.

---

L 108/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
28.4.2011
(9)
This argument was rejected since the product scope does
Commission. However, only for the schemes listed in
not refer to tolerances. The product control number
recital 12 above, it was found that the investigated
(PCN) in the questionnaire does contain a field for
exporting producers in the sample had received subsidies.
tolerances limited to range H6 to H11 but this is only
for comparison purposes and has no binding conse
quences for the product under investigation. It is
(15) The
Union
industry
also
argued
that
the
Commission
therefore concluded that products outside the tolerance
findings contradict a US Department of Commence (US
range of H6 to H11 should not be excluded.
DOC) finding in a recent countervailing proceedings
concerning certain steel exports from India where
much higher subsidies were found. However, it should
be noted that this finding relates to a different product
(10) It should be noted that for the calculation of the provi
and cover a different investigation period. Consequently,
sional subsidy and injury margins, the products outside
this argument is hereby rejected.
the tolerance range of H6 to H11 were taken into
account.
(16) In
the
absence
of
any
other
comments,
recitals
26
to
28
of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
2.2. Like product
(11) In the absence of any comments concerning the like
3.2. Duty entitlement passbook scheme (DEPBS)
product, recital 25 of the provision Regulation is

hereby confirmed.
(17) Several
parties
argued
that
the
DEPBS
should
not
be
considered as a countervailable subsidy, since the
purpose of the scheme is to offset customs duties on
imports. As explained in recital 38 of the provisional
3. SUBSIDISATION
Regulation this scheme cannot be considered a
permissible duty drawback system or substitution
3.1. Introduction
drawback system within the meaning of
(12) In
recital
26
of
the
provisional
Regulation,
reference
was
Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation since it does
made to the following schemes, which allegedly involve
not conform to the rules laid down in Annex I item
the granting of subsidies:
(i), Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and
Annex III (definition and rules for substitution
drawback) to the basic Regulation. In particular, an
exporter is under no obligation to actually consume
(a) duty entitlement passbook scheme;
the goods imported free of duty in the production
process and the amount of credit is not calculated in
relation to actual inputs used. Moreover, there is no
system or procedure in place to confirm which inputs
(b) advance authorisation scheme;
are consumed in the production process of the exported
product or whether an excess payment of import duties
occurred within the meaning of item (i) of Annex I, and
Annexes II and III to the basic Regulation. Lastly, an
(c) export promotion capital goods scheme;
exporter is eligible for the DEPBS benefits regardless of
whether it imports any inputs at all. In order to obtain
the benefit, it is sufficient for an exporter to simply
export goods without demonstrating that any input
(d) export oriented units scheme;
material was imported. Thus, even exporters which
procure all of their inputs locally and do not import
any goods which can be used as inputs are still entitled
to benefit from the DEPBS. Therefore, these arguments
(e) export credit scheme.
are hereby rejected.
(18) In case of sales of the DEPB licence, one party argued
(13) The
Union
industry
questioned
whether
the
Commission
that the actual selling price was below the licence value
failed to take into account a number of subsidy schemes,
and therefore the benefit was less. In this regard, it
and as a result believed that the subsidies found to be
should be noted that the benefit under this scheme
received by Indian producers were underestimated.
was calculated on the basis of the amount of credit
granted in the licence regardless of whether the licence
was used to offset customs duties on imports or whether
the licence was actually sold. It is considered that any
(14) In
reply
to
this,
it
should
be
noted
that
the
complaint
sale of a licence at a price less the face value is a pure
contained a great number of national and local subsidy
commercial decision which does not alter the amount of
schemes, which were included in the questionnaire to
benefit received under this scheme. Therefore, this
exporting producers in India and investigated by the
argument is hereby rejected.

---

EN
28.4.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
108/5
(19) One
party
further
argued
that
even
if
the
DEPBS
was
(Annex II(II)(5) and Annex III(II)(3) to the basic Regu
considered countervailable, the benefit received under
lation). The sub-scheme is therefore countervailable, and
the scheme should not be based on export value, but
the argument is hereby rejected.
rather the actual use of the DEPB licence. In this
respect, it should be recalled that in accordance with
Articles 3(2) and 5 of the basic Regulation, the amount
of countervailable subsidies was calculated in terms of
(22) Regarding the calculation of the subsidy amount, and
benefit conferred on the recipient, which is found to
contrary to the submission by one party, AAS benefit
exist during the IP. In this regard, it was considered
generated by other than the product concerned had to
that the benefit is conferred on the recipient at the
be considered when establishing the amount of counter
point of time when an export transaction is made
vailable benefit. No obligation exists under AAS which
under this scheme. At that moment, the Government
limits the use of the benefit to the importation of duty-
of India (GOI) is liable to forego the customs duties,
free input material linked to a particular product.
which constitutes a financial contribution within the
Consequently, the product concerned can benefit from
meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(i) of the basic Regulation.
all AAS benefit generated.
Once the customs authorities issue an export shipping
bill which shows, inter alia, the amount of DEPBS credit
which is to be granted for that export transaction, the
GOI has no discretion as to whether or not to grant the
(23) In
the
absence
of
any
other
comments
concerning
this
subsidy. By virtue of the fact that a company is aware
scheme, recitals 42 to 58 of the provisional Regulation
that it will receive a subsidy under DEPBS, the company
are hereby confirmed
is in a more advantageous position, because it can reflect
the subsidies through offering lower prices. The moment
of export is decisive in order to establish conferral of a
benefit, not the subsequent usage, because an exporter
3.4. Export promotion capital goods scheme
already with such vested right is ‘better off’ in financial
(EPCGS)
terms. Consequently, this claim is hereby rejected.
(24) In the absence of any comments concerning this scheme,
recital 59 of the provisional Regulation is hereby
confirmed.
(20) In the absence of any other comments concerning this
scheme, recitals 29 to 41 of the provisional Regulation
are hereby confirmed.
3.5. Export oriented units scheme (EOUS)
(25) Before
addressing a number of comments from the
3.3. Advance authorisation scheme (AAS)
company in the sample which had the status of an

EOU, it should be recalled that a crucial obligation of
(21) One
party
argued
that
the
AAS
should
be
considered
as
a
an EOU as set out in the FT-policy 2004-2009 and FT-
duty drawback system, because the imported materials
policy 2009-2014 is to achieve net foreign exchange
are used to produce exported goods. In reply to this
(NFE) earnings, that is in a reference period (5 years)
argument, it was explained in recital 54 of the provi
the total value of exports has to be higher than the
sional Regulation that the sub-scheme used in the
total value of imported goods. All enterprises which, in
present case cannot be considered permissible duty
principle, undertake to export their entire production of
drawback system or substitution drawback system
goods or services may be set up under the EOUS.
within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic
Regulation. It does not conform to the rules laid down
in Annex I item (i), Annex II (definition and rules for
drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substi
(26) In return, export oriented units are entitled to a number
tution drawback) to the basic Regulation. The GOI did
of concessions listed under recital 66 of the provisional
not effectively apply a verification system or a procedure
Regulation. They are contingent in law upon export
to confirm whether and in what amounts inputs were
performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and
consumed in the production of the exported product
countervailable under Article 4(4), first subparagraph,
(Annex II(II)(4) to the basic Regulation and, in the case
point (a) of the basic Regulation. The export objective
of substitution drawback schemes, Annex III(II)(2) to the
of an EOU as set out in Chapter 6.1 of the FT-policy
basic Regulation). It is also considered that the standard
2009-2014 is a conditio sine qua non to obtain the
input-output norms (SIONs) for the product concerned
subsidies.
were not sufficiently precise and that themselves cannot
constitute a verification system of actual consumption
because the design of those standard norms does not
enable the GOI to verify with sufficient precision what
(27) The
exemptions
an
EOU
enjoys
are
all
contingent
in
law
amounts of inputs were consumed in the export
upon export performance. The EOUS cannot be
production. In addition, the GOI did not carry out a
considered as a permissible duty drawback system or
further examination based on actual inputs involved,
substitution drawback system within the meaning of
although this would normally need to be carried out in
Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. It does not
the absence of an effectively applied verification system
conform to the strict rules laid down in Annex

---

L 108/6
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
28.4.2011
I (items (H) and (i), Annex II (definition and rules for
place aiming to monitor the consumption of imports in
drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substi
relation to the production of exported goods. Regarding
tution drawback) to the basic Regulation.
the party’s claim that the EOU is not a duty drawback
scheme, it should be noted that footnote 2 of Annex I to
the basic Regulation clearly stipulates that for the
purpose of the basic Regulation ‘remission or drawback’
includes the full or partial exemption or deferral of
(28) In
addition,
it
has
not
been
confirmed
that
the
GOI
has
a
import charges. It should be clear that the basic
verification system or procedure in place to confirm
concept applying to duty drawback refund or
whether and in what amounts duty and or sales tax
exemption schemes are the same, i.e. that import duties
free procured inputs were consumed in the production
on imports of raw materials are either not payable or
of the exported product (Annex II(II)(4) to the basic
refundable on the condition that such raw materials are
Regulation and, in the case of substitution drawback
used in the manufacture of products, which are
schemes, Annex III(II)(2) to the basic Regulation). The
consequently exported. Finally, it should be clear that,
verification system in place aims at monitoring the NFE
in order to determine whether the EOUS is to be
earning obligation and not the consumption of imports
considered as a bona fide duty drawback scheme, it has
in relation to the production of exported goods.
to meet the requirements of Annexes I, II and III to the
basic Regulation.
(29) In the view of the party with the status of an EOU,
countervailability of any benefit is subject to two
(32) The
party
further
claimed
that
an
EOU
is
subject
to
a
conditions: (i) lack of a verification system; and (ii) that
proper verification system and further verification steps
there is excess remission. In reply to this, it should be
regarding both its export and domestic sales. It claimed
noted that it is vital for the GOI to demonstrate that it
that not only the foreign trade policy (FTP) and the
has put in place a proper verification system to
Handbook of procedures (HOP), which establishes the
determine which inputs were consumed in the
laws and procedures to EOU, were relevant. It should
production process and in what amounts. The lack of
also be investigated whether there are other Indian laws
a proper verification system will be further addressed
and Regulations in place which establish a reasonable
below. Regarding the issue of excess remission, this is
and effective verification system. In support for its
only relevant in a case where it has determined that a
claim, the party argued that, according to Section
scheme, in this cases the EOUS, is a bona fide duty
6.10.1 of the HOP, it is legally obliged to maintain
drawback scheme which fulfils the requirements of
proper accounts and shall file digitally signed quarterly
Annexes I, II and III to the basic Regulation. As already
and annual progress reports concerning imports,
explained in recital 27 above, the EOUS cannot be
domestic purchases, export and domestic sales. The
considered as a permissible duty drawback system or
party further argued that, according to the Central
substitution drawback system within the meaning of
Excise Act, 1944, when making domestic sales, it is
Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation.
under the legal obligation to issue a tax invoice on
which, for example, the payable taxes clearly are
indicated. The Central Excise Act also establishes
monthly requirements according to which the party
(30) The
party
further
underlined
the
default
character
of
the
must submit to the authorities full details of its
EOU system as one that allows duty-free imports of raw
domestic sales. Also, under the Companies Act, 1956,
material for exports of finals goods. The party argued
and the applicable accounting standards, the party is
that the EOU system may be assimilated with the
legally obliged to provide detailed information on
special customs procedure of inward processing relief,
imports and domestic procurement, as well as export
not duty drawback. It claimed that irrespective of
and domestic sales in its audited financial statements.
whether the outcome of these two systems is theo-
retically the same (export of goods that incorporate
raw materials for which duty upon importation is
foregone), there are substantial differences between
(33) In reply to this, it is not disputed that the Companies Act
them. In support for the claim, the party argued that
may provide the framework for accounting standards in
in a duty drawback system, the exporter has the right
India. However, when accessing the countervailability of
to claim the refund or duties for raw material incor
the EOU, the relevant issue is whether the GOI has a
porated in the final goods. In the inward processing
system in place which can confirm whether and in what
system, the exporter is exempted from any import duty
amounts inputs free of duty or tax were consumed in the
but has the legal obligation to pay duty for any final
production of the exported goods.
goods sold domestically. The party argued that there
cannot be any excess remission under the latter system.
(34) The
requirements
under
the
Central
Excise
Act
serve
a
completely different purpose, i.e. to ensure that
(31) In reply to this, it should first of all be noted that it can
applicable taxes are paid in case of sales on the
only be determined whether excess payment has taken
domestic market in India. It does not verify the duty-
place in cases where there is a verification system in
free imported materials, and it does not control the

---

EN
28.4.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
108/7
nexus between duty-free inputs and resultant export
Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, the subsidy amount
products in order to qualify as duty drawback schemes.
(numerator) calculated under the scheme was allocated
over total export turnover during the IP as appropriate
denominator because the subsidy is contingent upon
export performance. The possibility for an EOU to sell
(35) Concerning
further
verification
steps
installed,
it
should
part of its production on the domestic market does not
be recalled, as mentioned under recital 69 of the provi
alter the fact that EOUS has a clear export objective.
sional Regulation, that an EOU is at no point in time
required to co-relate every import consignment with the
destination of the corresponding resulting product. Only
such consignment controls, however, would provide the
(39) Lastly, the party argued that the benefit conferred upon
the company should be equal to the credit costs foregone
Indian authorities with sufficient information about the
by the GOI between the time the raw materials are
final destination of inputs to check that duty/sales tax
imported and the final stainless steel bars are exported
exemptions do not exceed inputs for export production.
from India. In support for its claim, the party referred to
a recent preliminary finding of the US DOC in an anti-
subsidy new shipper review where unpaid duties were
considered to be interest-free loan made to the
(36) Consequently, despite careful consideration of the
company at the time of the importation. In reply to
submission made by this party, it was confirmed that
this, it is noted that the Commission is not bound by
the GOI has no effective verification system or
any calculation methodology applied by the US DOC but
procedure in place to confirm whether and in what
by the provisions of the basic Regulation. In the present
amounts duty and sales tax-free procured inputs were
case, the calculation methodology used is explained in
consumed in the production of the exported product
recitals 75 and 76 of the provisional Regulation. In
(Annex II(II)(4) to the basic Regulation and, in the case
any event, this argument would only work if the duties
of substitution drawback schemes, Annex III(II)(2) to the
were merely deferred (footnote 3 of Annex I to the basic
basic Regulation). Also the GOI did not carry out a
Regulation) rather than exempted, as is the case here.
further examination based on actual inputs involved,
although this would be normally required in the
absence of an effective verification system (Annex
II(II)(5) and Annex III(II)(3) to the basic Regulation).
(40) In the light of the above, recitals 60 to 77 of the provi
Furthermore no evidence was provided by the GOI that
sional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
no excess remission took place.
3.6. Export credit scheme (ECS)
(37) The party argued that for the purpose of the subsidy
(41) One
party
acknowledged
that
it
had
received
a
prefer
calculation the Commission should have taken into
ential credit for its export but argued that this rate was
account customs duties paid on domestic sales of
considerably higher than the prevailing credit rates in the
finished products. In reply to this argument, it should
EU and therefore should not be considered as a benefit.
be noted that though the purpose for setting up an
EOU unit is to achieve NFE earning, the EOU unit has
the possibility to sell part of its production on the
domestic market. Under the EOUS, the goods will be
(42) In
reply
to
this,
it
should
be
noted
that
the
subsidy
treated as imported goods though only a concessional
amount was calculated on the basis of the difference
duty rate of 50 % has to be paid. As such, an EOU is
between the interest paid for export credits and the
not in a different situation than other companies
amount that would have been payable for ordinary
operating on the domestic market, i.e. applicable
commercial credits used by the company concerned in
duties/taxes would have to be paid on purchased
India. In this case, a domestic benchmark was used to
goods. In this context, it should be clear that a
calculate the amount of subsidy. Therefore, this argument
decision of the GOI to tax goods for consumption on
is hereby rejected.
the domestic market does not mean that the exemption
of an EOU unit from import duties and reimbursement
of sales taxes is not a benefit in relation to the export
sales of the product concerned. Moreover, the sales on
(43) In
the
absence
of
any
other
comments
concerning
this
the domestic market have no impact on the more general
scheme, recitals 78 to 86 of the provisional Regulation
assessment of the adequacy of whether there is an appro
are hereby confirmed.
priate verification system in place.
3.7. Amount of countervailable subsidies
(38) The
party
also
argued
that
the
Commission
uses
the
(44) The
amount
of
countervailable
subsidies
in
accordance
wrong denominator when calculating the subsidy
with the provisions of the basic Regulation, expressed
amount. It claimed that the correct denominator is the
ad valorem, ranges from 3,3 % to 4,3 %. As these are at
entire sales turnover and not the export sales turnover.
the same level as set out in recital 87 of the provisional
This claim has to be rejected. In accordance with
Regulation, that recital is therefore confirmed.

---

L 108/8
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
28.4.2011
SCHEME→ DEPBS
(*) AAS
(*) EOU
(*) ECS
(*) Total
establish the injury margin, was not representative for the
industry’s long-term pre-tax profit margin. It was argued
Company
that the year on which this profit was based counted as
an exceptional year and that the years 2005-2006 would
Chandan
1,5 % 1,5
% 0,4
% 3,4
%
Steel Ltd
be more representative since these were normal business
years with profit margins ranging from 4 to 6 %.
Venus group 2,6
% 0 to
3,3 % (**)
to
0,8 %
3,4 %
(52) The target profit used at provisional stage was based on
the weighted average profit margin realised by the
Viraj Profiles
4,3 % 4,3
%
Vpl. Ltd
sampled Union producers in 2007. This year was
considered to be the most recent representative year
(*) Subsidies marked with an asterisk are export subsidies.
when the Union producers did not suffer from
(**) Weighted average for the group.
injurious subsidisation. The comment is therefore
rejected, the profit margin used at provisional stage is
hereby confirmed.
(45) The
methodology
for
establishing
the
subsidy
margin
for
the cooperating companies not included in the sample
was set out in recital 88 of the provisional Regulation. In
(53) In
the
absence
of
other
comments
received
concerning
line with Article 15(3) of the basic Regulation, the
the injury elimination level, recitals 149 to 153 of the
subsidy margin for the cooperating companies not
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
included in the sample, calculated on the basis of the
weighted average subsidy margin established for the
cooperating companies in the sample, is 4,0 %. Hence,
8.2. Conclusion on injury elimination level
recital 88 of the provisional Regulation is hereby
confirmed.
(54) The methodology used in the provisional Regulation is
hereby confirmed.
(46) The basis for establishing the country-wide subsidy
margin was set out in recital 89 of the provisional Regu
lation. In the absence of any comments in this regard,
8.3. Level of the duties
recital 89 of the provisional Regulation is hereby
confirmed.
(55) In the light of the foregoing and in accordance with
Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, a definitive counter
4. UNION INDUSTRY
vailing duty should be imposed at a level sufficient to
eliminate the injury caused by the subsidised imports
(47) In the absence of any comments concerning Union
without exceeding the subsidy margin found.
industry, recitals 90 to 93 of the provisional Regulation
are hereby confirmed.
(56) On the basis of the above, the countervailing duty rates
5. INJURY
were established by comparing the injury elimination
margins and the subsidy margins. Consequently, the
(48) In
the
absence
of any
comments concerning
injury,
proposed countervailing duty rates are as follows:
recitals 94 to 122 of the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.
6. CAUSATION
Company
Subsidy
margin
Injury margin Countervailing
duty rate
(49) In the absence of any comments concerning causation,
Chandan Steel Ltd 3,4
% 28,6
% 3,4
%
recitals 123 to 136 of the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.
Venus Group 3,3
% 45,9
% 3,3
%
7.
Viraj Profiles Vpl. Ltd 4,3
% 51,5
% 4,3
%
UNION INTEREST
Cooperating non- 4,0 % 44,4
% 4,0
%
(50) In the absence of any comments concerning Union
sampled companies
interest, the conclusions in recitals 137 to 148 of the
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
All other companies 4,3
% 51,5
% 4,3
%
8. DEFINITIVE COUNTERVAILING MEASURES
8.1. Injury elimination level
(57) The individual company countervailing duty rates
specified in this Regulation were established on the
(51) One
party
claimed
that
the
average
pre-tax
profit
margin
basis of the findings of the present investigation.
of 9,5 %, which was based on the situation in the year
Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that
2007, used to calculate the non-injurious price to
investigation with respect to these companies. These

---

EN
28.4.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
108/9
duty rates (as opposed to the country-wide duty
2. The
rate
of
the
definitive
countervailing
duty
applicable
to
applicable to ‘all other companies’) are thus exclusively
the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product
applicable to imports of products originating in India and
described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies
produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal
below shall be:
entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any
other company not specifically mentioned in the
operative part of this Regulation, including entities
related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit
Company Duty
(%)
TARIC
additional code
from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate
applicable to ‘all other companies’.
Chandan Steel Ltd, Mumbai 3,4 B002
(58) Any
claim
requesting
the
application
of
an
individual
Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai;
3,3 B003
company countervailing duty rates (e.g. following a
Precision Metals, Mumbai;
change in the name of the entity or following the
Hindustan Inox Ltd, Mumbai;
Sieves Manufacturer India Pvt. Ltd,
setting up of new production or sales entities) should
Mumbai
be addressed to the Commission ( 1 ) forthwith with all
relevant information, in particular any modification in
Viraj Profiles Vpl. Ltd, Thane 4,3 B004
the company’s activities linked to production, domestic
and export sales associated with, for example, that name
Companies listed in the Annex 4,0 B005
change or that change in the production and sales
entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will accordingly
All other companies 4,3 B999
be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting
from individual duty rates.
8.4. Definitive collection of provisional duties
3. Unless
otherwise
specified,
the
provisions
in
force
(59) In view of the magnitude of the subsidy margins found
concerning customs duties shall apply.
and in the light of the level of the injury caused to the
Union industry, it is considered necessary that the
amounts secured by way of the provisional counter
Article 2
vailing duty, imposed by the provisional Regulation, be
Amounts secured by way of provisional countervailing duties
definitively collected,
pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1261/2010 on imports of
stainless steel bars and rods, not further worked than cold-
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
formed or cold-finished, other than bars and rods of circular
cross-section of a diameter of 80 mm or more, currently falling
Article 1
within CN codes 7222 20 21, 7222 20 29, 7222 20 31,
7222 20 39, 7222 20 81 and 7222 20 89, and originating in
1. A
definitive
countervailing
duty
is
hereby
imposed
on India, shall be definitively collected.
imports of stainless steel bars and rods, not further worked
than cold-formed or cold-finished, other than bars and rods
of circular cross-section of a diameter of 80 mm or more,
Article 3
currently falling within CN codes 7222 20 21, 7222 20 29,
7222 20 31, 7222 20 39, 7222 20 81 and 7222 20 89 and
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its
originating in India.
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, 19 April 2011.
For the Council
The President
MARTONYI J.
( 1 ) European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate H,
1049 Brussels, Belgium.

---

L 108/10
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
28.4.2011
ANNEX
INDIAN COOPERATING EXPORTING PRODUCERS NOT SAMPLED
TARIC ADDITIONAL CODE B005
Company name City
Ambica Steel Ltd New-Delhi
Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd Navi-Mumbai
Chase Bright Steel Ltd Navi-Mumbai
D.H. Exports Pvt. Ltd Mumbai
Facor Steels Ltd
Nagpur
Global Smelters Ltd Kanpur
Indian Steel Works Ltd Navi-Mumbai
Jyoti Steel Industries Ltd Mumbai
Laxcon Steels Ltd Ahmedabad
Meltroll Engineering Pvt. Ltd Mumbai
Mukand Ltd
Thane
Nevatia Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd Mumbai
Panchmahal Steel Ltd Kalol
Raajratna Metal Industries Ltd Ahmedabad
Rimjhim Ispat Ltd Kanpur
Sindia Steels Ltd
Mumbai
SKM Steels Ltd
Mumbai
Parekh Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd Thane
Shah Alloys Ltd Gandhinagar

---