Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1666 of 6 June 2024 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of steel ropes and cables originating in the People’s Republic of China as extended to imports of steel ropes and cables consigned from Morocco and the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in these countries or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1) (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 11(2) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) By Regulation (EC) No 1796/1999 (2) the Council imposed an anti-dumping duty on imports of steel ropes and cables (‘SRC’) originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’), Hungary, India, Mexico, Poland, South Africa and Ukraine. Those measures will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the original measures’ and the investigation that led to the measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1796/1999 will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the original investigation’.

(2) Thereafter, it was found that circumvention of the original measures concerning imports from Ukraine and the PRC took place via respectively Moldova and via Morocco following investigations pursuant to Article 13 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (3). Consequently, by Regulation (EC) No 760/2004 (4), the Council extended the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of SRC originating in the Ukraine to imports of the same products consigned from Moldova. Similarly, the anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of steel ropes and cables originating in the PRC was extended, by Council Regulation (EC) No 1886/2004 (5) to imports of the same products consigned from Morocco.

(3) By Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 (6), the Council, following an expiry review in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, extended the original measures imposed on imports of SRC originating in the PRC, India, South Africa and Ukraine for five years. The measures applicable to imports originating in Mexico expired on 18 August 2004 (7). As Hungary and Poland became members of the European Union on 1 May 2004, the measures were terminated on that date.

(4) In May 2010, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 400/2010 (8), the Council extended the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 on imports of SRC originating in the PRC to imports of SRC consigned from the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in the Republic of Korea or not, as a result of an anti-circumvention investigation in accordance with Article 13 of the basic Regulation. Certain Korean exporting producers were granted an exemption from the extended duty as they were not found to circumvent the definitive anti-dumping duties.

(5) The measures applicable to imports originating in India expired on 17 November 2010 (9).

(6) In January 2012, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 102/2012 (10), the Council, following an expiry review in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation imposed the anti-dumping duty with regard to imports of SRC originating in the PRC and Ukraine as extended to imports consigned from the Republic of Korea, Morocco and Moldova. At the same time, the exporting producer in Morocco exempted from the measures as extended by Regulation (EC) No 1886/2004 were exempted from the measures. The 15 exporting producers in the Republic of Korea exempted from the measures as extended by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 400/2010 were also exempted from the measures.

(7) By the same Regulation, the Council terminated the proceeding with regard to imports of SRC originating in South Africa. The measures applicable to imports originating in South Africa expired on 9 February 2012.

(8) In April 2018, by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/607 (11), the Commission following an expiry review in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, imposed an anti-dumping duty with regards to imports of SRC originating in the PRC as extended to Morocco and the Republic of Korea (the ‘previous expiry review’).

(9) The measures applicable to imports originating in Ukraine expired on 10 February 2017 (12).

(10) The definitive anti-dumping duties currently in force amount to 60,4 %.

(11) Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry (13) the European Commission (‘the Commission’) received a request for a review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

(12) The request for review was submitted on 17 January 2023 by the European Federation of Steel Wire Rope Industries (‘the applicant’) on behalf of the Union industry of steel ropes and cables in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The request for review was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in continuation or recurrence of dumping and recurrence of injury to the Union industry.

(13) Having determined, after consulting the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, on 14 April 2023 the Commission initiated an expiry review with regard to imports into the Union of steel ropes and cables originating in People’s Republic of China on the basis of Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (14) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(14) The investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022 (‘review investigation period’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2019 to the end of the review investigation period (‘the period considered’).

(15) In the Notice of Initiation, interested parties were invited to contact the Commission in order to participate in the investigation.

(16) In addition, the Commission specifically informed the applicant, other known Union producers, the known producers in the PRC and the authorities of the PRC, known importers and users about the initiation of the expiry review and invited them to participate in the investigation.

(17) Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the initiation of the expiry review and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.

(18) No parties requested to be heard.

(19) Comments on initiation were received from one Chinese producer, namely the Fasten Group Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. and its related companies (‘Fasten Group’).

(20) The Fasten Group argued that the applicant did not demonstrate that the Union industry was in unfavourable situation as the data provided showed that the Union industry performed well during the injury assessment period. Moreover, it was claimed that the applicant did not show likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury. In particular, it was claimed that the information regarding exports of China to third countries and imports from third countries to the Union was irrelevant to the assessment of the impact on the Union industry and inconsistent with the requirements of the anti-dumping regulation and the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement. The Chinese exporter provided also data on its export prices of SRC to the Union and argued that these prices were closer to the Union prices which indicated that there was no likelihood of continuation of recurrence of injury. The Fasten Group argued that the Chinese export prices in the request were not correct as they were much lower than its export prices. Furthermore, the Fasten Group asked the Commission to terminate the expiry review.

(21) The Commission noted that the purpose of anti-dumping measures is to eliminate the trade distorting effects of injurious dumping and to restore effective competition by having a positive effect on the state of the Union industry. Even if the Union industry had not suffered material injury in the period considered by the request, one would need to assess whether resulting from the Chinese imports injury may recur if measures would be allowed to lapse. In addition, the Notice of Initiation stated in point 4.2 that the applicant alleged the likelihood of recurrence of injury from the PRC. In this respect the applicant has provided sufficient evidence that, should measures be allowed to lapse, the current import level of the product under review from the country concerned to the Union was likely to increase significantly. As pointed out in the request, due to the existence of unused production capacity in the PRC, the price behaviour of Chinese exporters on third country markets as well as the attractiveness of the Union market, these increased imports will be made at dumped prices that will undercut Union prices thus causing injury to the Union industry. Therefore, these claims were rejected.

(22) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it might sample the interested parties in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

Sampling of Union producers

(23) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. The Commission selected the sample on the basis of representability in terms of size of the production and sales volume on the free market in the Union in the review investigation period and geographic location. This sample consisted of three Union producers: Gustav Wolf GmbH, WIRECO Poland sp. z o.o., and Redaelli Tecna SPA. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample.

(24) The applicant informed the Commission that the sales and production volumes of one of the selected companies being submitted as part of the request, Gustaf Wolf GmbH, were in fact consolidated rather than provided separately for the legal entities within the group. After reviewing the sales and production volumes of the product under review for the individual companies within the group, the Commission decided to revise the proposed sample and replace Gustav Wolf GmbH by DIEPA Drahtseilwerk Dietz GmbH & Co. KG. This was in order to maintain the methodology of selecting the largest entities.

(25) DIEPA Drahtseilwerk Dietz GmbH & Co. KG, subsequently informed the Commission that due to temporary technical reasons it would not be in a position to provide the requested information in the required timeline in order to cooperate as a sampled company. The Commission, therefore, revised the proposed sample and replaced DIEPA Drahtseilwerk Dietz GmbH & Co. KG by another German producer, Pfeifer Drako Drahtseilwerk GmbH. This decision was based on the volume of sales and production of the like product in the Union during the period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022 and geographical spread. The revised sampled Union producers accounted for 21 % of the estimated Union sales volume and around 21 % of total Union production of the like products. The revised sample was found to be representative of the Union industry. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission invited interested parties to comment on the revised sample. No comments were received. Therefore, the revised sample was confirmed.

Sampling of importers

(26) To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked unrelated importers to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation.

(27) None of the unrelated importers came forward in order to provide the requested information. Therefore, no sampling was necessary.

Sampling of exporting producers in the PRC

(28) To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all exporting producers in the PRC to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation. In addition, the Commission asked the Mission of the PRC to the European Union to identify and/or contact other exporting producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.

(29) One exporting producer in the PRC replied to the sampling questionnaire. However, neither this producer nor any other exporting producer/producer provided the requested information.

(30) In the previous expiry review, 21 exporting producers were identified while the present request for review listed 46 producers of steel ropes and cables in the PRC. Only one of these companies provided a sampling reply, however, without providing the requested information concerning the factors of production. This company accounted for less than one third of the total volume of imports of steel ropes and cables from the PRC into the European Union and accounted for less than 2 % of the total production of steel ropes and cables in the PRC. As the Union market share of imports from the PRC was around 1 % during the review investigation period, the Commission considered that less than one third of these imports would not provide sufficient information to assess the export price and the existence of continuation of dumping during the review investigation period and cannot be considered as representative of the total imports from the PRC.

(31) In view of the insufficient level of cooperation, the Commission decided not to apply sampling in accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation. No comments were received.

(32) The Commission sent a questionnaire concerning the existence of significant distortions in the PRC within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation to the Government of the People’s Republic of China (‘GOC’). No reply was received.

(33) Despite the low representativeness of the Chinese producer which submitted a sampling reply, the Commission invited the exporting producer to provide additional information in a simplified form related to their domestic sales and production and exports to third countries and exports to the Union, that might be used for the investigation. No reply was received.

(34) All of the three sampled Union producers submitted a questionnaire reply.

(37) The product under review is the same as in the previous expiry review namely steel ropes and cables including locked coil ropes, excluding ropes and cables of stainless steel, with a maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeding 3 mm (‘the product under review’), currently falling under CN codes ex 7312 10 81, ex 7312 10 83, ex 7312 10 85, ex 7312 10 89 and ex 7312 10 98 (TARIC codes 7312108112, 7312108113, 7312108119, 7312108312, 7312108313, 7312108319, 7312108512, 7312108513, 7312108519, 7312108912, 7312108913, 7312108919, 7312109812, 7312109813 and 7312109819) (‘the product under review’).

(38) Product concerned by this investigation is the product under review originating in the PRC (‘the product concerned’).

(40) These products are therefore considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(41) During the review investigation period (i.e. from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022), imports of steel ropes and cables from the PRC remained at a very low level similar to the previous expiry review. According to the Comext database, imports of steel ropes and cables from the PRC accounted for about 1,2 % of the Union market in the review investigation period.

(42) As mentioned in recital (29) only one exporting producer replied to the sampling questionnaire but did not submit any of the subsequently requested information. Therefore, the Commission informed the authorities of the PRC that due to the absence of cooperation, the Commission intended to apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation concerning the findings with regard to the PRC. The Commission did not receive any comments.

(43) Consequently, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the findings in relation to the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping were based on facts available, in particular the information received in the request, the information received from one sampled Union producer, and from available statistics, namely those from Comext and the Global Trade Atlas (‘GTA’) databases.

(44) Given the sufficient evidence available at the initiation of the investigation tending to show, with regard to the PRC, the existence of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b) of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation, the Commission initiated the investigation on the basis of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(45) In order to obtain information it deemed necessary for its investigation with regard to the alleged significant distortions, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the GOC. In addition, in point 5.3.2 of the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited all interested parties to make their views known, submit information and provide supporting evidence regarding the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation within 37 days of the date of publication of the Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union. No questionnaire reply was received from the GOC and no submission on the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation was received within the deadline. Subsequently, the Commission informed the GOC that it would use facts available within the meaning of Article 18 of the basic Regulation for the determination of the existence of the significant distortions in the PRC.

(46) In point 5.3.2 of the Notice of Initiation, the Commission also stated that, in view of the evidence available, Türkiye was considered as a possible representative third country for the PRC pursuant to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation for the purpose of determining the normal value based on undistorted prices or benchmarks. The Commission further stated that it would examine other possibly appropriate countries in accordance with the criteria set out in first indent of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(47) On 13 November 2023, the Commission informed interested parties on the relevant sources it intended to use for the determination of the normal value in a Note to the file (‘the Note’), with Türkiye as the representative country. It also informed interested parties that it would establish selling, general and administrative (‘SG&A’) and profits based on available information for the company Celik Halat, producer of the product under review in the representative country. No comments were received.

(48) In the Note, the Commission presented the main factors of production. In addition to those factors of production, the Commission also added overheads as explained in recital (106). Furthermore, considering that the current investigation is an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, which does not require a precise dumping margin calculation, but rather establishing the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping, the Commission considered that in this case it could exceptionally focus on the main factors of production for the calculation of the normal value.