L_2012334EN.01003101.xml
| 6.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 334/31 |
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1153/2012
of 3 December 2012
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of chamois leather originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Articles 9(4) and 11(2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (‘the Commission’) after consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A. PROCEDURE
1. Measures in force
| (1) | The Council, following an anti-dumping investigation (‘the original investigation’), imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1338/2006 (2) a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of chamois leather currently falling within CN codes 4114 10 10 and 4114 10 90 originating in the People’s Republic of China (the ‘PRC’ or ‘the country concerned’) (‘the definitive anti-dumping measures’). The measures took the form of an ad valorem duty at the level of 58,9 %. |
2. Request for an expiry review
| (2) | Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry of the definitive anti-dumping measures in force (3), the Commission received on 14 June 2011 a request for the initiation of an expiry review of these measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. The request was lodged by the UK Leather Federation (‘the applicant’), representing more than 50 % of the total Union production of chamois leather. |
| (3) | The application submitted was based on the grounds that the expiry of the definitive anti-dumping measures would be likely to result in a continuation of dumping and injury to the Union industry. |
3. Initiation of an expiry review
| (4) | Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, the Commission announced on 13 September 2011, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4) (‘the Notice of initiation’), the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. |
4. Investigation
4.1. Review investigation period and period considered
| (5) | The investigation of a continuation of dumping covered the period from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 (‘the review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation of injury covered the period from 1 January 2008 to the end of the review investigation period (‘the period considered’). |
4.2. Parties concerned by the investigation
| (6) | The Commission officially advised the applicant and other known Union producers, exporting producers in the country concerned, unrelated importers, users in the Union known to be concerned, and the representatives of the exporting country of the initiation of the expiry review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the Notice of initiation. |
| (7) | In view of the apparent large number of Union producers, exporting producers in the country concerned and unrelated importers, it was considered appropriate, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to examine whether sampling should be used. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, those parties were requested, pursuant to Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to make themselves known within 15 days of the initiation of the review and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the Notice of initiation. |
| (8) | Sampling for Union producers has been applied, and out of three known Union producers two groups of producers have been sampled. |
| (9) | Six known exporting producers in the PRC were contacted. However, none of these companies cooperated in the investigation. |
| (10) | With regard to importers, 35 unrelated importers of chamois leather in the Union were identified and invited to provide sampling information. Only two of them came forward and were willing to cooperate in the current review. Consequently, no sampling was necessary for unrelated importers. |
| (11) | The Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and to those who made themselves known within the deadlines set in the Notice of initiation. Replies were received from the sampled groups of Union producers and two cooperating unrelated importers. None of the exporting producers in the PRC cooperated in the review and no relevant consumer association supplied the Commission with any information or made itself known in the course of the investigation. |
| (12) | The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for a determination of the likelihood of a continuation of dumping and resulting injury and of the Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following interested parties: |
| — | Hutchings & Harding Ltd, Cambridge, United Kingdom; and |
| — | Marocchinerie e Scamoscerie Italiane Spa, Turin, Italy. |
B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
| (13) | The product concerned by this review is the same as the one in the original investigation, namely chamois leather and combination chamois leather, whether or not cut to shape, including crust chamois leather and combination crust chamois leather originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the product concerned’), currently falling within CN codes 4114 10 10 and 4114 10 90. |
| (14) | The investigation confirmed that, as in the original investigation, the product concerned and the products manufactured and sold on the domestic market in the PRC, as well as those manufactured and sold in the Union by the Union producers, have the same basic physical and technical characteristics as well as the same uses and are, therefore, considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. |
C. LIKELIHOOD OF A CONTINUATION OF DUMPING
| (15) | In accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the expiry of the existing measures would be likely to lead to a continuation of dumping. |
1. Preliminary remarks
| (16) | As stated in recital (9) above, none of the six exporting producers in the PRC contacted cooperated with the investigation and findings on the likelihood of a continuation of dumping had to be based on facts available, in particular information submitted by the applicant, including information in the review request, and statistics in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. |
2. Dumping of imports during the RIP
2.1. Analogue country
| (17) | In accordance with the provisions of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value had to be determined on the basis of the price or constructed normal value obtained in an appropriate market economy third country (the ‘analogue country’), or the price from the analogue country to other countries, including the Union, or, where those are not possible, on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary to include a reasonable profit margin. |
| (18) | In the original investigation, the USA served as an analogue country for the purpose of establishing the normal value. The only chamois leather producer operating in the USA at the time of the original investigation has since closed its production site. Since then, its chamois leather has been imported from a joint venture company in Turkey. As there is no more significant production of chamois leather left in the USA, other countries, i.e. New Zealand, Turkey and India, were envisaged as analogue countries in the Notice of initiation of the present review. Potential analogue country producers located in New Zealand, Turkey and India were contacted, but no cooperation could be obtained. |
| (19) | Regarding the normal value, in the absence of cooperation from an analogue country producer, it was determined on the basis of information on the average price of Indian imports into the Union as available in the import statistics from Eurostat for the RIP (India being the country with the highest volume of imports into the Union). Regarding the export price, in the absence of cooperation from the exporting producers from the PRC, it was based on the information on the average price of the Chinese imports into the Union as available in the import statistics from Eurostat for the RIP. On those bases, the dumping margin was established as the difference between the average price of the Indian imports into the Union used as normal value and the average price of the Chinese imports used as export price. The dumping calculation resulted in a dumping margin of 64 %. |
2.2. Development of imports should measures be repealed
| (20) | Further to the analysis of the existence of dumping during the RIP, the likelihood of continuation of dumping should measures be repealed was investigated. Given the fact that no exporting producer in the PRC cooperated in this investigation, the conclusions below rely on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, namely information provided in the review request, data provided by the applicant, as well as Eurostat data. |
...
