L_2006022EN.01005401.xml
| 26.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 22/54 |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 22 December 2005
amending Commission Decision 1999/572/EC accepting undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of steel wire ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in India
(2006/38/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Articles 8 and 9 thereof,
After consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A. PREVIOUS PROCEDURE
| (1) | In August 1999, by Regulation (EC) No 1796/1999 (2), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of steel ropes and cables (the product concerned) originating, inter alia, in India. |
| (2) | By Decision 1999/572/EC (3), the Commission accepted a price undertaking from an Indian company, i.e. Usha Martin Industries & Usha Beltron Ltd. This company has changed its name in the meantime and is now known as Usha Martin Ltd (UML). The change of name in no way affected the activities of the company. |
| (3) | As a result, imports into the Community of the product concerned of Indian origin, produced by UML or by any other related company worldwide, and of a type covered by the undertaking (the product covered by the undertaking), were exempted from the definitive anti-dumping duties. |
| (4) | In this regard, it should be noted that certain types of steel wire rope currently produced by UML were not exported to the Community during the investigation period which led to the imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures and were not, therefore, within the scope of the exemption afforded by the undertaking. Accordingly, such steel wire ropes were liable to the payment of the anti-dumping duty when entered for free circulation in the Community. |
| (5) | In November 2005, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 121/2006 (4) decided that the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of the product concerned originating, inter alia, in India should be maintained. |
B. BREACHES OF THE UNDERTAKING
1. Obligations of companies with undertakings
| (6) | The undertaking offered by UML obliges it (and any related company worldwide) to, inter alia, export the product covered by the undertaking to the first independent customer in the Community at or above certain minimum import price levels (MIPs) laid down in the undertaking. These price levels eliminate the injurious effects of dumping. In the case of resales in the Community to the first independent customer by related importers, the resale prices of the product covered by the undertaking, after appropriate adjustments for selling, general and administrative costs and a reasonable profit, must also be at levels which eliminate the injurious effects of dumping. |
| (7) | The terms of the undertaking also oblige UML to provide the Commission with regular and detailed information in the form of a quarterly report of its sales (and resales by its related parties in the Community) of the product concerned originating in India to the Community. Such reports are intended to include the products covered by the undertaking which benefit from the exemption to the anti-dumping duty as well as those types of steel wire ropes not covered by the undertaking and which are therefore liable to the anti-dumping duty. |
| (8) | Unless otherwise indicated, it is assumed by the Commission that the sales reports of UML (and the reports of resales of related companies established in the Community) are, as submitted, complete, exhaustive and correct in all particulars. |
| (9) | It was also acknowledged by UML that, with regard to the exemption to the anti-dumping duties afforded by the undertaking, such exemption is conditional upon presentation to Community customs services of an ‘Undertaking Invoice’. Moreover, the company undertook not to issue such Undertaking Invoices for sales of those types of the product concerned not covered by the undertaking and which are therefore liable to the anti-dumping duty. |
| (10) | It is also a condition of the undertaking that the terms and provisions thereof apply to any related company to UML, worldwide. |
| (11) | For the purposes of ensuring compliance with the undertaking, UML also agreed to provide all information considered necessary by the Commission and to allow on-spot verification visits at its premises, and those of any related companies, in order to verify the accuracy and veracity of data submitted in the said quarterly reports. |
| (12) | In this regard, verification visits were carried out at the premises of UML in India and at those of a related company to UML in Dubai, i.e. Brunton Wolf Wire Ropes FZE (BWWR). |
2. Results of the verification visit to UML
| (13) | Examination of the company’s accounting records showed that significant volumes of the product concerned not covered by the undertaking had not been included in the quarterly undertaking sales reports submitted to the Commission. Furthermore, the goods in question had been sold by UML to its related importers in the UK and Denmark and included on Undertaking Invoices. |
| (14) | It is considered that the omission of the sales in question from the sales reports and their incorrect inclusion on Undertaking Invoices constitute breaches of the undertaking. |
3. Results of the verification visit to BWWR
| (15) | It should first be noted that finished steel wire rope produced by BWWR has previously gone through two main production stages, namely: (i) a given number of individual steel wires are first twisted into what is known as a ‘stranded wire’, and (ii) a given number of such stranded wires formed from individual steel wires are then twisted together to form the finished steel wire rope. |
| (16) | The verification at the premises of BWWR established that significant quantities of stranded wire of Indian origin had been sold by UML to BWWR and that BWWR had transformed this stranded wire into steel wire rope, some of which was then sold to the Community and exported as having United Arab Emirates (UAE) origin. |
| (17) | In view of this transformation process, it was considered necessary to examine the question of the origin of the steel wire rope sold to the Community by BWWR. Reference was therefore made to Article 22 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (5) (the Community Customs Code), which provides that the non-preferential rules of origin apply to measures other than tariff measures established by Community provisions governing specific fields relating to trade in goods, such as anti-dumping measures. |
| (18) | The provisions regarding determination of the non-preferential origin of products, the production of which involves more than one country, are set out in Articles 24 and 25 of the Community Customs Code and Articles 35 and 39 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (6) laying down the provisions for the implementation of the Community Customs Code. As concerns the concept of the ‘last substantial transformation’ referred to in Article 24 of the Community Customs Code, in the case of steel wire ropes, it is considered that this product has undergone its last substantial processing or working when it is classified in a |
...
