HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"L 202/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
27.7.2013
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 721/2013
of 22 July 2013
amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 405/2011 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,
examination of subsidisation as far as the applicant was
concerned. The applicant had provided prima facie
evidence that the circumstances with regard to
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
subsidisation on the basis of which measures were
Union,
imposed had changed significantly and that those
changes were of a lasting nature.
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of
11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from
(4) Having
determined,
after
consulting
the
Advisory
countries not members of the European Community ( 1 ) (‘the
Committee, that sufficient evidence existed to justify
basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 19 thereof,
the initiation of a partial interim review, the Commission
announced on 9 August 2012, by a notice published in
the Official Journal of the European Union ( 3 ) (‘notice of
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European
initiation’), the initiation of a partial interim review, in
Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,
accordance with Article 19 of the basic Regulation,
limited to the examination of subsidisation in respect
of the applicant.
Whereas:
1.3. Review investigation period
1. PROCEDURE
(5) The
review
investigation
of
subsidisation
covered
the
1.1. Previous investigation and existing counter
period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 (‘the review
vailing measures
investigation period’ or ‘RIP’).
(1) In
April
2011,
by
Implementing
Regulation
(EU)
No
405/2011 ( 2 ) (‘the definitive Regulation’), the Council
imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of
certain stainless steel bars and rods (‘SSB’) currently
1.4. Parties concerned by the investigation
falling within CN codes 7222 20 21, 7222 20 29,
(6) The
Commission
officially
informed
the
applicant,
the
7222 20 31, 7222 20 39, 7222 20 81 and 7222 20 89
Government of India (‘the GOI’) and Eurofer as the repre
and originating in India. The investigation, which led to
sentative of the Union industry in the original investi
the adoption of the definitive Regulation, is hereinafter
gation (‘the Union industry’), of the initiation of the
referred to as ‘the original investigation’.
partial interim review investigation. Interested parties
were given the opportunity to make their views known
in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit
(2) The
definitive
measures
consisted
of ad valorem counter
set out in the notice of initiation.
vailing duties, ranging between 3,3 % and 4,3 % imposed
on imports from individually named exporters, a 4,0 %
duty rate imposed on non-sampled cooperating
companies and a residual duty rate of 4,3 % imposed
(7) The
written
and
oral
comments
submitted
by
the
parties
on all other companies in India.
at the stage of initiation were considered and, where
appropriate, taken into account.
1.2. Initiation of a partial interim review
(3) A
request
for
a
partial
interim
review
was
lodged
by
Viraj (8) In
order
to
obtain
the
information
necessary
for
its
inves
Profiles Vpl. Ltd, an exporting producer located in India
tigation, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the
(‘the applicant’). The request was limited in scope to the
applicant. In addition, a questionnaire was sent to the
GOI.
( 1 ) OJ L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93.
( 2 ) OJ L 108, 28.4.2011, p. 3.
( 3 ) OJ C 239, 9.8.2012, p. 2.

---

EN
27.7.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
202/3
(9) Replies
to
the
questionnaire
were
received
from
the
(c) was benefiting from provisions of inputs for less than
applicant and from the GOI.
adequate remuneration;
(10) The
Commission
sought
and
verified
all
information
it
(d) was benefiting from incentives related to power
deemed necessary for the determination of subsidisation.
generation and distribution;
Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the
applicant.
(e) was benefiting from purchases of cheap raw materials
2. PRODUCT CONCERNED
from related off-shore companies.
(11) The product under review is the same product as the one
defined in the original investigation, namely stainless
(16) Finally, the Commission verified that the following
steel bars and rods, not further worked than cold-
schemes investigated in the original investigation:
formed or cold finished, other than bars and rods of
circular cross-section of a diameter of 80 mm or more,
currently falling within CN codes 7222
20
21,
(a) Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPBS);
7222 20 29, 7222 20 31, 7222 20 39, 7222 20 81 and
7222 20 89 and originating in India.
(b) Advanced Authorization Scheme (AAS);
3. SUBSIDISATION
are still not being used by the applicant.
3.1. Introduction
(12) On the basis of the information submitted by the GOI
3.2. Findings
and interested parties and the replies to the Commission’s
questionnaire, the following schemes allegedly used by
3.2.1. Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme
applicant were investigated:
(17) The
investigation
revealed
that
the
applicant
used
this
scheme during the RIP. However, it was found that the
(a) Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS);
incentives received were insignificant at 0,02
%.
Therefore, it was considered that it was not necessary
(b) Export Oriented Units Scheme (EOU);
to further evaluate the countervailability of this scheme.
(c) Export Credit Scheme (ECS);
3.2.2. Export Oriented Unit Scheme
(13) Schemes
(a)
and
(b)
are
based
on
the
Foreign
Trade
(18) It
was
found
that
the
applicant
had
the
status
of
EOU
(Development and Regulation) Act 1992 (No 22 of
and received the subsidies under this scheme in the RIP.
1992) which entered into force on 7 August 1992
(‘Foreign Trade Act’). The Foreign Trade Act authorises
the GOI to issue notifications regarding the export and
(19) With
regard
to
this
scheme
the
company
claimed
that
import policy. These are summarised in a document
the Commission should deviate from the method of
called ‘Foreign Trade Policy’ documents, issued by the
calculation of the benefit received under EOU used in
Ministry of Commerce every five years and updated regu
the original investigation. The company argued that
larly. The Foreign Trade Policy document relevant to the
certain benefits under the EOU scheme should be
RIP is the ‘Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014’ (‘FTP 09-
treated as a permissible duty drawback scheme within
14’). In addition, the GOI also sets out the procedures
the meaning of Annexes II and III of the basic Regulation
governing the FTP 09-14 in a ‘Handbook of Procedures,
and therefore they should not be countervailable.
Volume I’ (‘HOP I 09-14’), which is updated on a regular
basis.
(20) However,
since
it
was
found
that
regardless
of
which
method of calculation would be used, the subsidy rate
(14) The
ECS
scheme
specified
under
(c)
is
based
on
sections
established with respect to this scheme would not exceed
21 and 35A of the Banking Regulation Act 1949, which
0,22 %, leading to an overall subsidy margin below de
allows the Reserve Bank of India to direct commercial
minimis level, it was decided not to analyse further this
banks in the field of export credits.
claim in the context of this review investigation.
(15) Furthermore, following the allegation of the Union
3.2.3. Export Credits Scheme
industry, the Commission investigated whether the
applicant:
(21) It was found that the applicant was not using this
scheme in the RIP.
(a) was benefiting from the Electricity Duty Exemption
Scheme (EDES);
3.2.4. Electricity Duty Exemption Scheme
(b) was using local subsidy programmes of the State of
(22) The
investigation
revealed
that
the
applicant
used
this
Maharashtra;
scheme during the RIP. However, it was found that

---

L 202/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
27.7.2013
the incentives received were insignificant. Therefore, it
duty rate applicable to the applicant in order to reflect
was considered that it was not necessary to further
the current level of subsidisation. Such duty rate should
evaluate the countervailability of this scheme.
be established at 0 % for the applicant.
3.2.5. Local Subsidy Programs of the State of Maharashtra
(32) With
regard
to
the
rate
of
duty
currently
applicable
to
imports of the product concerned from exporting
(23) It was found that the applicant was not using this
producers listed in the Annex to the definitive Regu
scheme in the RIP.
lation, it is noted that the current detailed arrangements
of the investigated schemes and their countervailability
3.2.6. Others
have not changed with respect to the previous investi
gation. Thus there is no reason to re-calculate the subsidy
(24) The
investigation
did
not
reveal
any
other
benefits
for
the
and duty rates of these companies. Consequently, the
applicant in the RIP related to the terms of raw materials
rates of the duty applicable to the companies listed in
and energy purchases which would involve a financial
the Annex to the definitive Regulation remain
contribution of the GOI and could therefore be treated
unchanged.
as subsidies within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and
Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation. Therefore, the alle
gations of the Union industry listed in the recital (15)
(33) With regard to all other companies’ duty rate, it is noted
points (c)-(e) were found irrelevant in the context of this
that in the original investigation its level was set at the
review.
level of the highest individual subsidy margin found for
the sampled companies. That corresponded to the
subsidy margin of the applicant. Given that the margin
4. AMOUNT OF COUNTERVAILABLE SUBSIDIES
of the applicant has changed following this interim
review, the all-other-companies rate should be revised
(25) It
is
recalled
that
the
original
investigation
established
the
and set at the next highest subsidy margin. Since the
amount of countervailable subsidies for the applicant,
next highest rate is the one applicable to the
expressed ad valorem, at 4,3 %.
companies listed in the Annex, the rate of duty for all
other companies should be set at that level, i.e. 4 %.
(26) During the RIP, the amount of countervailable subsidies
for the applicant, expressed ad valorem, resulting from
6. DISCLOSURE
only one subsidy scheme, was found to be 0,22 %.
(34) The
GOI
and
the
other
interested
parties
were
informed
of the essential facts and considerations upon which it
(27) Account taken of the above, it is concluded that the level
was intended to propose to amend the duty rate
of subsidisation with regard to the applicant exporting
applicable to the applicant.
producer concerned has decreased.
(35) The
written
and
oral
comments
submitted
by
the
parties
(28) It
was
also
examined
whether
the
changed
circumstances
were considered and, where appropriate, taken into
with regard to the examined schemes could be
account.
considered to be of a lasting nature.
(29) As
mentioned
above,
the
findings
with
regard
to
the
(36) All
interested
parties,
who
so
requested
and
showed
that
EPCGS scheme during this interim review confirmed
there were particular reasons why they should be heard,
the findings of the original investigation where the
were granted a hearing,
subsidy granted under this scheme was found to be insig
nificant.
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
(30) Moreover, while in the original investigation the main
Article 1
benefit to the applicant was conferred under the EOU
scheme, the benefit under this scheme has dropped
Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No
during the RIP. Evidence has been obtained that this
405/2011 is replaced by the following:
change is of a lasting nature as it relates to the
decreased level of customs tariffs on stainless steel
scrap and ferro-nickel, two main raw materials used by
‘2. The
rate
of
the
definitive
countervailing
duty
applicable
the applicant for the production of the product
to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the
concerned.
product described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the
companies below shall be:
5. COUNTERVAILING MEASURES
(31) On
the
basis
of
the
above
there
are
indications
that
the
Company Duty
(%)
TARIC
applicant will continue to receive subsidies in the future
additional code
of an amount which is below the de minimis level. Hence,
Chandan Steel Ltd, Mumbai 3,4 B002
it is considered appropriate to amend the countervailing

---

EN
27.7.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
202/5
Company Duty
(%)
TARIC
additional code
Company Duty
(%)
TARIC
additional code
Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd, 3,3 B003
Companies listed in the Annex 4,0 B005
Mumbai;
Precision Metals, Mumbai;
All other companies 4,0 B999’
Hindustan Inox Ltd, Mumbai;
Sieves Manufacturer India Pvt. Ltd,
Mumbai
Article 2
Viraj Profiles Vpl. Ltd, Thane
0 B004
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that
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, 22 July 2013.
For the Council
The President
C. ASHTON

---

Document Outline

• �

---