HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
24.7.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
196/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 672/2012
of 16 July 2012
extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011
on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China
to imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from Malaysia, whether declared
as originating in Malaysia or not
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
(3)
The request was lodged by Saint-Gobain Adfors CZ s.r.o.,
Tolnatext Fonalfeldolgozó és Mszakiszvet-gyártó Bt.,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Valmieras stikla iedra AS and Vitrulan Technical
Union,
Textiles GmbH, four Union producers of certain open
mesh fabrics of glass fibres.
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
(4) The
request
contained
sufficient
prima
facie
evidence
that
from countries not members of the European Community ( 1 )
following the imposition of the measures in force, a
(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 13 thereof,
significant change in the pattern of trade involving
exports from the PRC and Malaysia to the Union
Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
occurred, for which there was insufficient due cause or
economic justification other than the imposition of the
Whereas:
measures in force. This change in the pattern of trade
stemmed allegedly from the transhipment of certain open
mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC via
1. PROCEDURE
Malaysia.
1.1. Existing measures
(1) By
Implementing
Regulation
(EU)
No
791/2011
( 2 ), (‘the
(5)
Furthermore, the evidence pointed to the fact that the
original Regulation’), the Council imposed a definitive
remedial effects of the measures in force were being
anti-dumping duty of 62,9 % on imports of certain
undermined both in terms of quantity and price. The
open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the
evidence showed that these increased imports from
People’s Republic of China (‘the PRC’) for all other
Malaysia were made at prices below the non-injurious
companies than the ones mentioned in Article 1(2) and
price established in the original investigation.
Annex I to that Regulation. These measures will here
inafter be referred to as ‘the measures in force’ and the
investigation that led to the measures imposed by the
(6) Finally,
there
was
evidence
that
prices
of
certain
open
original Regulation will be hereinafter referred to as
mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from Malaysia
‘the original investigation’.
were dumped in relation to the normal value established
for the like product during the original investigation.
1.2. Request
(2) On
27
September
2011,
the
Commission
received
a
1.3. Initiation
request pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the
basic Regulation to investigate the possible circum
(7) Having
determined,
after
consulting
the
Advisory
vention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on
Committee, that sufficient prima facie evidence existed
imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres orig
for the initiation of an investigation pursuant to
inating in the PRC and to make imports of certain open
Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the
mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from Malaysia,
Commission initiated an investigation by Commission
whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not,
Regulation (EU) No 1135/2011 ( 3 ) (‘the initiating Regu
subject to registration.
lation’). Pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic
Regulation, the Commission, by the initiating Regulation,
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
( 2 ) OJ L 204, 9.8.2011, p. 1.
( 3 ) OJ L 292, 10.11.2011, p. 4.

---

L 196/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
24.7.2012
also directed the customs authorities to register imports
established for the like product, if necessary in
of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned
accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the
from Malaysia.
basic Regulation.
2.2. Product concerned and the product under
1.4. Investigation
investigation
(8) The
Commission
officially
notified
the
authorities
of
the (13) The product concerned is as defined in the original inves
PRC and Malaysia, the exporting producers in those
tigation: Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of a cell size
countries, the importers in the Union known to be
of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and
concerned and the Union industry of the initiation of
weighing more than 35 g/m
the investigation. Questionnaires were sent to the

2 , excluding fibreglass discs,
originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN codes
producers/exporters in the PRC and Malaysia known to
ex 7019 51 00, and ex 7019 59 00.
the Commission or which made themselves known
within the deadlines specified in recital 14 of the
(14) The product under investigation is the same as that
initiating Regulation. Questionnaires were also sent to
defined in the previous recital, but consigned from
importers in the Union. Interested parties were given
Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or
the opportunity to make their views known in writing
not.
and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the
initiating Regulation.
(15) The
investigation
showed
that
open
mesh
fabrics
of
glass
fibres, as defined above, exported from the PRC to the
(9) Three
exporting
producers
in
Malaysia,
and
three
Union and those consigned from Malaysia to the Union
unrelated importers in the Union made themselves
have the same basic physical and technical characteristics
known and submitted replies to the questionnaires.
and have the same uses, and are therefore to be
considered as like products within the meaning of
Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
(10) The
following
exporting
producers
submitted
replies
to
the questionnaires and verification visits were
2.3. Degree of cooperation and determination of the
subsequently carried out at their premises.
trade volumes
Exporting producers in Malaysia:
Malaysia
(16) As
stated
in
recital
10,
three
exporting
producers
in
— GFTex Fiberglass Manufacturer Sdn Bhd, Selangor,
Malaysia submitted questionnaire replies.
(17) On
the
spot
verification
visits
were
subsequently
carried
— Gold Fiberglass Sdn. Bhd, Selangor, and
out to these three exporting producers.
— GRI Fiberglass Industries, Selangor.
(18) The
three
Malaysian
exporting
producers
covered
75
%
of
the total exports of the product under investigation from
Malaysia to the Union in the RP as reported in
1.5. Investigation period
Comext ( 1 ).The overall export volumes were based on
Comext.
(11) The investigation period covered the period from
1 January 2008 to 30 September 2011 (‘the IP’). Data
(19) One
of
the
three
Malaysian
exporting
producers,
stopped
were collected for the IP to investigate, inter alia, the
cooperating following the first day of the verification
alleged change in the pattern of trade. More detailed
visit, therefore Article 18 of the basic Regulation was
data were collected for the reporting period 1 October
applied.
2010 to 30 September 2011 (‘the RP’) in order to
examine the possible undermining of the remedial
(20) For the other two companies the application of
effect of the measures in force and existence of dumping.
Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation was also found to
be warranted for the reasons explained in recitals 34 and
2. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION
52 to 59.
2.1. General considerations
People’s Republic of China
(12) In
accordance
with
Article
13(1)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
(21) There
was no cooperation from the PRC exporting
the investigation of the existence of circumvention was
producers. Therefore, findings in respect of imports of
made by the successive analysis of whether there was a
certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres from PRC into
change in the pattern of trade between the PRC, Malaysia
the Union and exports of the product concerned from
and the Union; whether this change stemmed from a
the PRC to Malaysia had to be made partially on the
practice, process or work for which there was insufficient
basis of facts available in accordance with Article 18(1)
due cause or economic justification other than the
of the basic Regulation. Comext data was used to
imposition of the duty; whether there was evidence of
determine overall import volumes from the PRC to the
injury or that the remedial effects of the duty were being
Union. PRC and Malaysian national statistics were used
undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of
for the determination of the overall exports from the
the like product; and whether there was evidence of
dumping in relation to the normal values previously
( 1 ) Comext is a database on foreign trade statistics managed by Eurostat.

---

EN
24.7.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
196/3
PRC to Malaysia. Data were also cross-checked with
Exports from the PRC to Malaysia
detailed import and export data that were provided by
the customs authorities of Malaysia.
(27) A dramatic increase of exports of open mesh fabrics of
glass fibres can also be observed from the PRC to
Malaysia within the same period. From a relatively
(22) The
import
volume
recorded
in
Malaysian
and
PRC
stat
small amount in 2008 (4,65
million m 2 ) exports
istics covered a larger product group than the product
increased to 32,78 million m 2 in the RP. The trend is
concerned or the product under investigation. However,
also confirmed by the corresponding Malaysian statistics
in view of Comext data and the data provided by the
with regard to imports of open mesh fabrics of glass
three Malaysian exporting producers, it could be estab
fibres in Malaysia from the PRC.
lished that a significant part of this import volume
covered the product concerned. Accordingly, these data
Table 2
could be used to establish a change in the pattern of
trade.
Exports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres from the PRC
to Malaysia from 1 January 2008 to 30 September 2011
2.4. Change in the pattern of trade
2008 2009 2010
1.10.2010-
30.9.2011
Imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres into the
Union
Quantity
4,65 5,78 5,94 32,78
(million m 2 )
(23) Imports of the product concerned from the PRC to the
Union dropped dramatically subsequent to the
imposition of the provisional measures in February
Yearly change (%) 24
% 2,8
% 452
%
2011 ( 1 ) and of the definitive measures imposed in
August 2011 (pursuant to the original Regulation).
Index (2008 = 100) 100 124 128 705
Source: PRC statistics.
(24) On the other hand, total exports of the product under
investigation from Malaysia to the Union increased
significantly in 2011. Based on Comext, exports from
(28) To establish the trend of the trade flow of certain open
Malaysia to the Union increased sharply in the last year
mesh fabrics of glass fibres from PRC to Malaysia, both
whereas they were at insignificant levels in previous
Malaysian and PRC statistics were considered. Both of
years. The trend is also confirmed by the corresponding
these data are only available at a higher product group
Malaysian statistics with regard to exports of open mesh
level than the product concerned. However, in view of
fabrics of glass fibres to the Union from Malaysia.
Comext data and the data provided by the three
Malaysian exporters which cooperated initially, it could
be established that a significant part covered the product
(25) Table
1
shows
import
quantities
of
certain
open
mesh
concerned. Therefore, these data could be taken into
fabrics of glass fibres from the PRC and Malaysia into the
account.
Union from 1 January 2008 to 30 September 2011.
(29) Tables 1 and 2 above clearly demonstrate that the sharp
drop of PRC exports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres
Import volumes in
to the Union was followed by a significant increase of
millions of m 2
2008 2009 2010
1.10.2010-
30.9.2011
PRC exports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres to
Malaysia with a subsequent drastic increase of
PRC 307,82 294,98 383,76 282,03
Malaysian exports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres
to the Union in the IP. The investigation revealed also
Malaysia 0,02 0,04 0,02 76,10
that additional quantities of open mesh fabrics of glass
fibres from the PRC to Malaysia were misdeclared at the
Source: Comext statistics.
time of importation to Malaysia under different codes
than the ones covered by the investigation. According
to the customs import declarations those additional
quantities were declared under codes 7019 11 000 and
(26) The
data
above
clearly
show
that
imports
from
Malaysia
7019 40 000.
into the Union were at negligible levels for the period
from 2008 to 2010. However, in 2011, following the
Production volumes in Malaysia
imposition of the measures, the imports surged suddenly
and to some extent replaced the exports from the PRC
(30) The three companies which cooperated initially were
on the Union market in terms of volume. Moreover,
established between November 2010 and March 2011
since the imposition of the measures in force, the
and they started production and exports to the Union
decrease of the exports from PRC to the Union has
only after the imposition of the provisional measures in
been significant (26 %).
February 2011. Prior to February 2011 there was no
production of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres in
( 1 ) OJ L 43, 17.2.2011, p. 9.
Malaysia.

---

L 196/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
24.7.2012
2.5. Conclusion on the change in the pattern of
export to the Union they were classified under the two
trade
CN codes covered by the investigation. This explains the
additional quantities of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres
(31) The
overall
decrease
of
the
exports
from
the
PRC
to
the
exported from Malaysia to the Union as confirmed by
Union and the parallel increase of exports from Malaysia
the findings with regard to the change in the pattern of
to the Union and of exports from the PRC to Malaysia
trade as described in recital 29.
after the imposition of provisional measures in February
2011 and of definitive measures in August 2011
constituted a change in the pattern of trade between
the above mentioned countries, on the one hand, and
(35) The
existence
of
transhipment
of
PRC-origin
products
via
the Union, on the other hand.
Malaysia is therefore confirmed.
2.6. Nature of the circumvention practice
Assembly and/or completion operations


(32) Article
13(1)
of
the
basic
Regulation
requires
that
the
(36) As
Article
18
of
the
basic
Regulation
was
applied
to
all
change in the pattern of trade stems from a practice,
three initially cooperating companies, it could not be
process or work for which there is insufficient due
established whether they are involved in assembly oper
cause or economic justification other than the imposition
ations.
of the duty. The practice, process or work includes, inter
alia, the consignment of the product subject to measures
via third countries and the assembly of parts by an
2.7. Insufficient due cause or economic justification
assembly operation in the Union or a third country.
other than the imposition of the anti-dumping
For this purpose the existence of assembly operations
duty
is determined in accordance with Article 13(2) of the
basic Regulation.
(37) The
investigation
did
not
bring
to
light
any
other
due
cause or economic justification for the transhipment than
the avoidance of the measures in force on certain open
mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC. No
Transhipment
elements were found, other than the duty, which could
be considered as a compensation for the costs of trans
(33) Declared
exports
of
the
initially
cooperating
Malaysian
hipment, in particular regarding transport and reloading,
companies amounted to some 75
% of the total
of the product concerned from the PRC via Malaysia.
Malaysian exports to the Union. The remaining exports
can be attributed to Malaysian producers which have not
cooperated with the investigation or to transhipment
practices. One of the cooperating importers in the
2.8. Undermining of the remedial effect of the anti-
Union had sourced open mesh fabrics of glass fibres
dumping duty
from a Malaysian exporter who had not cooperated in
this investigation.
(38) To
assess
whether
the
imported
products
had,
in
terms
of
quantities and prices, undermined the remedial effects of
the measures in force on imports of certain open mesh
fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC, Comext data
(34) As set out in detail in recitals 52 to 59, the three initially
was used as the best data available concerning quantities
cooperating companies were informed on the spot that
and prices of exports by the three initially cooperating
they might be subject to the application of Article 18 of
exporting producers, where Article 18 of the basic Regu
the basic Regulation as it was found that they had
lation was applied, and by the non-cooperating
provided misleading information. In particular, evidence
companies. The prices so determined were compared to
suggested that two of the exporting producers which
the injury elimination level established for Union
cooperated initially did not disclose the relationship
producers in recital 74 of the original Regulation.
between them. Also, the companies manipulated and
altered documents such as bank statements. Moreover,
there are doubts as to whether some of their purchase
invoices, and bank payment vouchers are genuine. Also
(39) The
increase
of
imports
from
Malaysia
to
the
Union
from
two of them failed to demonstrate the origin of the raw
20 000 m 2 in 2010 to 76 million m 2 in the period April
materials used for the production of open mesh fabrics
to September 2011 was considered to be significant in
of glass fibres exported to the Union. Finally, based on
terms of quantities.
information obtained by the Malaysian authorities, goods
could qualify for the certificate of origin at the time of
their export if there is a change in the code classification
(40) The
comparison
of
the
injury
elimination
level
as
estab
between the imported raw materials used in the
lished in the original Regulation and the weighted
production process and the exported finished goods.
average export price (adjusted for post importation
Evidence seen during the verification visits suggested
costs and quality adjustments established in the original
that some quantities of open mesh fabrics of glass
investigation) showed significant underselling. It was
fibres from the PRC are misdeclared under codes not
therefore concluded that the remedial effects of the
covered by the investigation at the time of their
measures in force are being undermined in terms of
importation to Malaysia while at the time of their
both quantities and prices.

---

EN
24.7.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
196/5
2.9. Evidence of dumping
extended to imports of the same product consigned from
Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or
(41) Finally,
in
accordance
with
Article
13(1)
and
(2)
of
the
not.
basic Regulation it was examined whether there was
evidence of dumping in relation to the normal value
previously established for the like products.
(49) In
light
of
the
non-cooperation
in
this
investigation,
the
measures to be extended should be the measures estab
lished in Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU)
(42) In the original Regulation the normal value was estab
No 791/2011 for ‘all other companies’, which is a
lished on the basis of prices in Canada, which in that
definitive anti-dumping duty of 62,9 % applicable to
investigation was found to be an appropriate market
the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty.
economy analogue country for the PRC. In line with
Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation it was considered
appropriate to use the normal value as previously estab
(50) In accordance with Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic
lished in the original investigation.
Regulation, which provides that any extended measure
should apply to imports which entered the Union
under registration imposed by the initiating Regulation,
(43) The
export
prices
from
Malaysia
were
based
on
the
facts
duties should be collected on those registered imports of
available, i.e. on the average export price of certain open
certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from
mesh fabrics of glass fibres during the RP as reported in
Malaysia.
Comext. This was due to the application of Article 18 of
the basic Regulation to all three initially cooperating
exporters, thus their data could not be used to
4. REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION
establish the export prices.
(51) The
three
companies
in
Malaysia
that
submitted
ques
tionnaire replies requested an exemption from the
(44) For
the
purpose
of
a
fair
comparison
between
the
normal
possible extended measures in accordance with
value and the export price, due allowance, in the form of
Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation.
adjustments, was made for differences which affect prices
and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10)
(52) As mentioned in recital 19, one of the companies ceased
of the basic Regulation. Accordingly, adjustments were
cooperation following the first day of the verification
made for differences in transport, insurance, ancillary
visit. Even during the one day verification the
expenses, packing costs and bank charges. Taken that
cooperation was insufficient. In particular, the company
Article 18 of the basic Regulation was applied to all
failed to provide most of the requested supporting
three initially cooperating producers, the adjustments
documents like its production sheets, stocks and energy
had to be established on the best facts available. Thus,
bills. On the other hand, the raw materials kept in the
the adjustment for these allowances was based on a
company’s plant were at very low levels not justifying the
percentage calculated as the difference between the
declared production levels, and there were not any
total cif value over the total ex-works value of all the
finished goods stored in the warehouse. In addition, the
transactions provided by the three Malaysian producers
purchase invoices presented had the same format as a
in the RP.
block of invoices with pre-printed numbers found at the
company’s premises. This resemblance suggested that the
(45) In accordance with Article 2(11) and 2(12) of the basic
company’s purchase invoices may not be genuine.
Regulation, dumping was calculated by comparing the
Moreover, evidence suggested that the company did not
weighted average normal value as established in the
disclose its relationship with another Malaysian exporter
original Regulation and the weighted average export
that was also cooperating in the investigation. More
prices during this investigation’s RP, expressed as a
specifically, documents related to the other Malaysian
percentage of the cif price at the Union frontier duty
producer which cooperated initially were found at the
unpaid.
first company’s premises while that relationship was
not revealed by those companies.
(46) The
comparison
of
the
weighted
average
normal
value
and the weighted average export price as established
(53) In
accordance
with
Article
18(4)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
showed dumping.
the company was informed of the intention to disregard
the information submitted by it and was granted a time
limit to provide its comments. The company did not
3. MEASURES
provide any comments, thus in accordance with
Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, findings with
(47) Given the above, it was concluded that the definitive
regard to this company were based on facts available.
anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain open
mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC was
circumvented by transhipment from Malaysia within the
(54) The
cooperation
of
the
second
company
during
the
meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation.
verification visit was insufficient. The company denied
on several occasions access to crucial data such as the
production and stock record reports. The raw materials
(48) In
accordance
with
the
first
sentence
of
Article
13(1)
of
kept in the company’s plant were at very low levels
the basic Regulation, the measures in force on imports of
compared to the declared production levels and the
the product concerned originating in the PRC, should be
stock of finished goods stored in the warehouse. The

---

L 196/6
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
24.7.2012
company also failed to provide evidence with regard to
comments the company claimed that it does not have
the origin of the raw materials used for the production of
any experience with such kind of verification visits which
open mesh fabrics of glass fibres exported to the Union.
would explain, in their view, the deficiencies found. It
also claimed that it was cautious with the documents
requested and provided to the investigation team in
particular with the bank statements and proof of
(55) In
accordance
with
Article
18(4)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
payments as it was not officially informed by the
the company was informed of the intention to disregard
Malaysian authorities of the identity of the investigation
the information submitted by it and was granted a time
team. The company nevertheless admitted that its staff
limit to provide its comments. In its comments the
had altered the content of the bank statements but this
company claimed that the planned three days for the
was allegedly done due to the fact that the company was
verification visit were a short time frame and insufficient
highly concerned with possible leaks of its documents,
for the company to provide all the data and documents
sabotage and the confidentiality of its data.
requested by the investigation team. The company also
admitted that several times it denied access to data to the
investigation team and moreover it confirmed that, most
of the time, the persons representing the company during
(59) The
additional
explanations
provided
by
the
company
the verification visit had to obtain permission from their
were not such that would lead to change the conclusion
directors to grant access to data to the investigation
that the company had provided misleading information
team. In addition, the company admitted that the
within the course of the investigation. Thus, in
company’s representatives had no involvement with the
accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation,
accounts department while it confirmed that its directors
findings with regard to this company were based on
did not participate as they claimed to be occupied.
the facts available.
(56) The
company’s
explanations
confirm
the
conclusion
that
the company seriously impeded the investigation. The
(60) In
view
of
the
findings
with
regard
to
the
change
in
the
company was informed on the dates of the verification
pattern of trade and transhipment practices, as set out in
visit well in advance and agreed with them. Exporting to
recitals 31 and 35 and taking into account the nature of
the Union is the company’s main business, and yet its
the misleading information as set out in recitals 52 to
directors were not present. During the verification visit
59, the exemptions as requested by these three
there were deliberate and unjustified delays in providing
companies could, in accordance with Article 13(4) of
the requested data and documents while the denial of
the basic Regulation, not be granted.
access to data created further delays and impediments
in the completion of the verification within the set
time frame. Therefore, in accordance with Article 18(1)
of the basic Regulation, findings with regard to this
(61) Without
prejudice
to
Article
11(3)
of
the
basic
Regu
company were based on facts available.
lation, other producers in Malaysia which did not come
forward in this proceeding and did not export the
product under investigation to the Union in the RP
and which consider lodging a request for an exemption
(57) The
third
company’s
cooperation
during
the
verification
from the extended anti-dumping duty pursuant to
visit was insufficient, moreover it provided misleading
Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic Regulation will be
information. It was found that the company had
required to complete a questionnaire in order to enable
manipulated bank statements while it failed to prove
the Commission to determine whether an exemption
that its bank payment vouchers were genuine documents.
may be warranted. Such exemption may be granted
Its accounting records were considered unreliable as they
after the assessment of the market situation of the
presented numerous serious discrepancies with regard to
product concerned, production capacity and capacity
their opening and closing balances carried forward. The
utilisation, procurement and sales and the likelihood of
raw materials stocks were at low levels compared to the
continuation of practices for which there is insufficient
declared production levels and the stock of finished
due cause or economic justification and the evidence of
goods stored in the warehouse. The company also
dumping. The Commission would normally also carry
failed to provide evidence with regard to the origin of
out an on-the-spot verification visit. The request should
the raw materials used for the production of open mesh
be addressed to the Commission forthwith, with all
fabrics of glass fibres exported to the Union. Also
relevant information, in particular any modification in
evidence suggested that the company had not disclosed
the company’s activities linked to the production and
its relationship with the first Malaysian exporter as
sales.
certain documents which belong to the third company
were found in the premises of the first company.
(62) Where
an
exemption
is
warranted,
the
Commission
will,
after consultation of the Advisory Committee, propose
(58) In
accordance
with
Article
18(4)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
the amendment of the extended measures in force
the company was also informed on the intention to
accordingly. Subsequently, any exemption granted will
disregard the information submitted by it and was
be monitored to ensure compliance with the conditions
granted a time limit to provide its comments. In its
set therein.

---

EN
24.7.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
196/7
5. DISCLOSURE
3. Unless
otherwise
specified,
the
provisions
in
force
concerning customs duties shall apply.
(63) All interested parties were informed of the essential facts
and considerations leading to the above conclusions and
were invited to comment. The oral and written
Article 2
comments submitted by the parties were considered.
None of the arguments presented gave rise to a modifi
1. Requests
for
exemption
from
the
duty
extended
by
cation of the definitive findings.
Article 1 shall be made in writing in one of the official
languages of the European Union and must be signed by a
(64) One
cooperating
importer
asked
if
consideration
could
person authorised to represent the entity requesting the
be given to applying different duty rates on registered
exemption. The request must be sent to the following address:
imports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres by
importers who cooperated in the proceeding and those
who did not. The request was rejected as there is no legal
European Commission
basis in the basic Regulation to support such a
Directorate-General for Trade
distinction,
Directorate H
Office: N-105 04/92
1049 Bruxelles/Brussel
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
BELGIQUE/BELGIЁ
Article 1
Fax +32 22956505
1. The
definitive
anti-dumping
duty
applicable
to
‘all
other
companies’ imposed by Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation
2. In
accordance
with
Article
13(4)
of
Regulation
(EC)
No
(EU) No 791/2011 on imports of open mesh fabrics of glass
1225/2009, the Commission, after consulting the Advisory
fibres, of a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in
Committee, may authorise, by decision, the exemption of
width and weighing more than 35 g/m 2 , excluding fibreglass
imports from companies which do not circumvent the anti-
discs, originating in the People’s Republic of China, is hereby
dumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU)
extended to imports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of a
No 791/2011, from the duty extended by Article 1.
cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and
weighing more than 35
g/m 2 , excluding fibreglass discs,
consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in
Article 3
Malaysia or not, currently falling within CN codes
ex 7019 51 00,
and
ex 7019 59 00.
(TARIC
codes
Customs authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the regis
7019 51 00 11 and 7019 59 00 11).
tration of imports, established in accordance with Article 2 of
Regulation (EU) No 1135/2011.
2. The
duty
extended
by
paragraph
1
of
this
Article
shall
be
collected on imports consigned from Malaysia, whether declared
Article 4
as originating in Malaysia or not, registered in accordance with
Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1135/2011 and Articles 13(3)
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that
and 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.
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, 16 July 2012.
For the Council
The President
S. ALETRARIS

---

Document Outline

• �

---