Council Regulation (EC) No 194/1999 of 25 January 1999 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of hardboard originating in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Russia and definitively collecting the provisional duties imposed

• Published date: 29 January 1999
• Subject Matter: Dumping,Commercial policy
• Official Gazette Publication: Official Journal of the European Communities, L 22, 29 January 1999

|

Council Regulation (EC) No 194/1999 of 25 January 1999 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of hardboard originating in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Russia and definitively collecting the provisional duties imposed

Official Journal L 022 , 29/01/1999 P. 0016 - 0032

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 194/1999 of 25 January 1999 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of hardboard originating in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Russia and definitively collecting the provisional duties imposed

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Provisional measures

(1) Provisional anti-dumping measures were imposed in the present proceeding on 6 August 1998 by Regulation (EC) No 1742/98 (2) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Provisional Regulation`). Undertakings were offered and accepted from the cooperating exporting producers in all the countries concerned except Russia.

2. Subsequent procedure

(2) Following the imposition of the provisional measures, certain exporting producers, importers and Community users of the product concerned submitted comments in writing. Those parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard.

(3) Since the publication of the Provisional Regulation, investigations were carried out at the premises of the following companies which are users of the product concerned in the manufacture of doors:

- Svedex BV, Netherlands,

- Swedoor, a division of Nobia Nordisk Bygginteriör AB, Sweden (two production plants),

- Righini SA, France,

- Huet SA, France,

- Theuma Deurenindustrie NV, Belgium.

A non-complainant producer of eucalyptus hardboard was also visited, namely:

- Industria de Fibras de Madeira, Portugal,

as was the following unrelated importer of hardboard:

- Firma Christian Kröger GmbH & Co. KG, Germany.

B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE PRODUCT

1. Product under consideration

(4) The product under consideration in this anti-dumping proceeding is hardboard. Hardboard is defined as fibreboard of wood or other ligneous materials, whether or not bonded with resins or other organic substances and with a density exceeding 0.8 g/cm3, currently classifiable under CN codes ex 4411 11 00 and ex 4411 19 00.

Hardboard is exclusively obtained from a 'wet production process` (as opposed to dry-process fibreboards as described below) and normally has a density of 800 to 1050 kg/m3 and is made in thicknesses between 1,8 to 6,0 mm.

Hardboard is typically used in the manufacture of furniture, in the construction and automotive industries, for door skins and for packaging, especially fruit and vegetable packaging.

2. 'Thin` dry-process fibreboards

(5) After the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping measures, a number of importers and users continued to argue for an extension to the product scope of the proceeding. In particular, they argued that the so-called thin forms (less than 6 mm thickness) of dry-process fibreboards such as medium- and high-density fibreboard (thin MDF and HDF) and hardboard have essentially the same end uses, and therefore together form a single product. It was therefore alleged that the scope of the analysis of dumping, injury and Community interest should also include all these products.

(6) On the basis of the information submitted up to the provisional stage, a preliminary assessment of the extent to which the end uses of hardboard and thin dry-process fibreboards overlap was made. Based on the information submitted since the Provisional Regulation a definitive assessment has been made and it has become clear that, theoretically, such overlap is substantial and that only for some market segments are the two products not at all interchangeable.

(7) However, similarity of end uses does not alone determine the question of like product. The conclusions of the provisional investigation that hardboard and thin dry-process fibreboards were not a single product were based on differences of physical and chemical characteristics of the two products. Further investigation of the issues involved has allowed the following refinements of the analysis:

- it is confirmed that the thin HDF variant of dry-process fibreboards can be produced in densities comparable to or higher than the density of hardboard. With its density defined as being above 800 kg/m3, it is thin HDF which can be considered the closest to hardboard,

- however, the average prices for thin HDF were higher than those for thin MDF (10 to 15 % on average) and for most hardboard of equivalent board thicknesses under 6 mm, so that over the period investigated it was mainly thin MDF (density lower than 800 kg/m3) which competed on the market with hardboard over a large part of its final uses, particularly in the furniture sector, in part of the packaging sector, in the picture-frames sector and in a part of the doors sector,

- it was also pointed out that new, zero-emission, thin dry-process fibreboards are in production, i.e. thin dry-process fibreboards containing no formaldehyde. This development allows thin dry-process fibreboards to compete in the market of food packaging from which it has hitherto been excluded because of its formaldehyde content. However, these zero-emission products are a very recent innovation, and, although it is conceivable that thin dry-process fibreboards could in the future be used in the area of food packaging, their higher price would probably preclude this at the present time. As these developments relate to periods subsequent to the investigation period, they could not be investigated,

- the fact that thin dry-process fibreboards and hardboard share a number of end uses does not imply that the market considers them as a single product. Indeed, most operators in the sectors involved have confirmed that, in practice, they do not use the different board types indiscriminately because of the different physical characteristics and technical performances of the two products; rather, they choose between them according to which best suits their technical requirements. As an example, thin MDF has an advantage when it has to be laminated, due to its more porous and matte surface. Moreover, its internal structure is smooth and not layered like hardboard, and it does not have the tendency to split when submitted to tension. As a consequence, thin MDF is generally preferred to hardboard for the manufacture of laminated doors and furniture elements. On the other hand, hardboard generally has a distinct advantage in those uses where density and/or suppleness of the panel are required, such as in lacquered and pre-painted doors or automobile parts, or where it is thought that the resins contained in thin dry-process fibreboards would have, as explained above, a possible impact on health, such as in fruit and vegetable packaging.

(8) In conclusion, the definitive analysis confirms the provisional findings that hardboard and thin dry-process fibreboards, although they are theoretically interchangeable for many end uses, are not, in practice, a single product because of the differences in their physical and chemical characteristics.

(9) Nevertheless, although thin dry-process fibreboards do not form a single product with hardboard, it was claimed that the extent of the overlap in their end-uses has important implications for the analysis of the causes of any injury suffered by the Community industry. This issue is addressed below under causation.

3. Plywood and chipboard

(10) Submissions were received clarifying the arguments presented at the provisional stage of the investigation that plywood and chipboard panels were also interchangeable with hardboard in many of their applications. However, for the same reasons as were outlined for thin dry-process fibreboards above, theoretical similarity of end uses does not alone determine the question of single product. Since the physical and chemical characteristics of hardboard are different to chipboard and plywood panels, it cannot be considered to be a single product with them.

The provisional findings are therefore confirmed.

4. Like product

(11) The further investigation confirmed that there were no differences in the basic characteristics and uses of the hardboard imported into the Community from the countries concerned and the hardboard produced by the Community industry and sold on the Community market. The same is true with regard to hardboard produced and sold on the domestic markets of Brazil, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland (the last mentioned served also as an analogue country for imports from Russia). It was therefore concluded that both the hardboard produced and sold by the Community industry on the Community market and the hardboard produced and sold on the domestic markets of Brazil, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland were, within the meaning of Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Basic Regulation`), alike to the hardboard imported into the Community from the seven countries subject to investigation.

(12) However, the Brazilian exporting producers, as well as a number of users of hardboard, in particular manufacturers of doorskins, repeated their claims made at the provisional stage that Brazilian eucalyptus hardboard is not a like product with the product produced by the Community industry and should be excluded from the scope of the investigation.

(13) Among the exporting producers concerned by this investigation...