Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/670 of 4 April 2025 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Egypt, Japan and Vietnam

Image omitted; see official source	Official Journal of the European Union	EN L series
---	---	---
	2025/670	7.4.2025

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 7 thereof,

After consulting the Member States,

Whereas:

1. PROCEDURE

1.1.   Initiation

• (1) On 8 August 2024 the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel, originating in Egypt, India, Japan and Vietnam (‘the countries concerned’) on the basis of Article 5 of the basic Regulation. The Commission published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union ² (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

• (2) The Commission initiated the investigation following a complaint lodged on 24 June 2024 by the European Steel Association (‘EUROFER’ or ‘the complainant’). The complaint was made on behalf of the Union industry of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The complaint contained evidence of dumping and of resulting material injury that was sufficient to justify the initiation of the investigation.

1.2.   Registration of imports

• (3) Under Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product concerned may be made subject to registration for the purpose of ensuring that, if the investigation results in findings leading to the imposition of anti-dumping duties, those duties can, if the necessary conditions are fulfilled, be levied retroactively on the registered imports in accordance with the applicable legal provisions. The Commission decided to make imports of the product concerned subject to registration on its own initiative by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2719 ³ (‘the registration Regulation’).

1.3.   Interested parties

• (4) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited interested parties to contact it in order to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the complainant, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers and the Egyptian, Indian, Japanese and Vietnamese authorities, the known importers, suppliers and users, traders, as well as associations known to be concerned about the initiation of the investigation and invited them to participate.

• (5) Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the initiation of the investigation and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings. Hearings were held with the Egyptian Government, the Egyptian cooperating exporting producer, Nippon Steel Corporation, JFE Steel Corporation, the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and the Consortium for the defence of Imports of Hot-Rolled Flat products (the ‘Consortium’).

1.4.   Comments on initiation

1.4.1.   Claims regarding absence of threat to the EU industry

• (6) Following initiation, the Egyptian cooperating exporting producer claimed that hot-rolled flat products of steel (‘HRF’) exports from Egypt to the Union were negligible, accounting for only 1,3 % of the open market. It also argued that being the sole producer of HRF in Egypt, its capacity was much smaller compared to the other countries concerned and did not increase since 1999.

• (7) The same cooperating exporter argued that it had a longstanding partnership with several European equipment suppliers, banks and government, as regards in particular the purchase of raw material, including high-grade iron ore from one Member State.

• (8) These claims were examined respectively under sections on causality and EU interest.

1.4.2.   Claims on absence of evidence

• (9) Comments were received from the Consortium, the Government of Egypt and the Egyptian cooperating exporting producer.

• (10) The Consortium argued that the Union industry was already over protected with the implementation of a safeguard regime setting out a cap limiting to 15 % imports of third countries. The Consortium argued that in the last eight years, several anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures have been taken against imports from major producing countries such as Brazil, China, Russia, Iran, Türkiye and Ukraine. This argument is further addressed in recital (198) below.

• (11) One exporting producer claimed that rights of defence have been infringed due to the incompleteness of the open versions of the annexes to the complaint made available in the file open for consultation by interested parties.

• (12) One Vietnamese exporting producer argued that the initiation was not compliant with Article 5.2 and 5.3 of the WTO Antidumping Agreement (‘ADA’) and Article 5(2)(d) of the basic Regulation, as it lacked positive evidence justifying the initiation of the proceeding.

• (13) This exporting producer claimed that factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry, such as those listed in Article 3(3) and (5) and as required by Article 5(2) of the basic Regulation were not included in the complaint by the complainant or relevant information submitted on certain other aspects were incomplete or presented in a way to misrepresent the actual state of the Union industry. These concerned:

• — a breakdown of import volumes per each targeted country;

• — import volumes and value of non-targeted countries;

• — sale prices of the Complainant and Union Industry;

• — a breakdown of employment data for administrative staff and labour directly involved in the manufacturing;

• — wages to personnel;

• — cash flow.

• (14) As a result, a high number of injury indicators requiring examination pursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation had not been dealt with in the complaint. These indicators include return on investments, factors affecting Union prices, actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, wages, or the ability to raise capital.

• (15) Finally, this exporting producer claimed that the data provided by the complainant regarding market share were arithmetically impossible due to the consistently increasing domestic sales above the level of consumption growth.

• (16) In reply to those arguments, it was considered that the version open for inspection by interested parties of the complaint contained all the essential evidence and non-confidential summaries of data provided under confidential cover in order for interested parties to exercise their right of defence throughout the proceeding.

• (17) It is recalled that Article 19 of the basic Regulation and Article 6.5 ADA allow for the safeguarding of confidential information in circumstances where disclosure would be of significant competitive advantage to a competitor or would have a significantly adverse effect upon a person supplying the information or upon a person from whom that person has acquired the information.

• (18) The information provided in the limited annexes to the complaint falls under these categories. In any event, the complainant has provided a meaningful summary of the information contained in the limited annexes of the complaint so that interested parties may have a ‘reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence’ as set forth by Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation. The complainant has adequately summarised the contents of these annexes, without disclosing sensitive company-specific data.

1.4.3.   Claims regarding preliminary dumping calculations for Egypt

• (19) The Egyptian government and the cooperating exporting producer both submitted comments on initiation, claiming the absence of dumping for Egyptian imports. They argued that the dumping for Egypt in the complaint was established by an ‘incorrect use of the official exchange rate rather than the parallel market rate’ to calculate the normal value and the dumping margin. They argued that the use of the ‘parallel market rate’ for the dumping calculation would demonstrate that Egyptian imports were not sold at unfairly low prices in the EU market. Both parties thus plead for the use of the parallel exchange rate for foreign currencies instead of the official Egyptian Central Bank (‘CBE’) rate for the conversion of Euro’s and the United States dollar (‘USD’) into Egyptian pounds (‘EGP’). To substantiate their claim, both parties referred to publications by Ernst & Young, the IMF and the European Commission and to Egyptian governmental decrees recognising the parallel market exchange rate, including a specific document issued after the investigation period by the Egyptian Financial Regulatory Authority authorising EZDK to use the actual exchange rates, supported by documents, rather than the official CBE ones for financial accounting and reporting purposes for the years 2023 and 2024.

• (20) It has however been the Commission’s consistent practice to use official exchange rates in cases where there are allegations of the use of parallel exchange rates ⁴. In addition, it has to be noted that the official CBE rate was the only legal exchange rate that prevailed during the investigation period of the complaint. and that there were no publicly recorded historic rates of a ‘black’ or parallel market for the investigation period. The complaint was considered to be supported by sufficient evidence for the purpose of initiating the case. For the investigation itself however, the Commission relied only on verified data, i.a. submitted by the parties in the questionnaire replies and verified on spot. This claim was therefore rejected.

• (21) Both parties also claimed that an error was made in the calculation of dumping in the complaint, by using ‘grossly inflated freight costs’ without justification. The cooperating exporting producer claimed in addition that errors were made in the calculation of dumping in the complaint by applying the official exchange rate for the purpose of determining the normal value and by using ‘erroneous domestic prices’ and by making reference to HRF prices of two Egyptian companies, who do not produce the product under investigation.

• (22) Also in this regard it should be mentioned that the complaint was considered to be supported by sufficient evidence for the purpose of initiating the case. For the investigation itself, the Commission relied only on verified data, i.a. submitted by the parties in the questionnaire replies and verified on spot. This claim was therefore rejected.

1.4.4.   Claims regarding preliminary dumping calculations for Vietnam

• (23) The two cooperating exporting producers in Vietnam, Formosa Ha Tinh Steel Corporation (‘Formosa’), Hoa Phat Dung Quat Steel Joint Company (‘HPDQ’) and a user, Marcegaglia Carbon Steel S.p.A, submitted comments on dumping calculations in the complaint, and in particular on the allegations by the complainant on existence of ‘a particular market situation’ in Vietnam not allowing for a proper comparison according to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. The three parties argued that the allegations in the complaint on the existence of the particular market situation were unfounded.

• (24) The Commission recalled that when assessing the evidence in the complaint, it only took into account those elements for which evidence in the complaint was sufficiently adequate and accurate. It considered that it was not the case with regard the evidence contained in the complaint on the existence of the particular market situation in Vietnam. In addition, the calculated dumping in the complaint however was established without taking the particular market situation into account. The existence of the particular market situation was also not established by the Commission during the investigation. The dumping calculations for the two cooperating exporting producers were therefore calculated in line with the method detailed in Section 3.4 below. The Commission thus rejected the claims.

1.4.5.   Claim regarding anticipated change of circumstances in Vietnam

• (25) Formosa argued that the domestic market in Vietnam experienced a high pressure from imports of the product under investigation from the People’s Republic of China (‘the PRC’) and India at dumped prices. As a result, the Government of Vietnam initiated an anti-dumping investigation, and provisional measures were to be imposed in January 2025. Formosa thus argued that the Commission should pay attention to the anticipated change in circumstances, and it should ensure that eventual anti-dumping measures to be imposed on Vietnam would be adequate to the new situation of lasting nature.

• (26) The Commission recalled that the assessment of dumping and the resulting injury related to the investigation period and the period considered as mentioned in Section 1.8 below, and that it could not anticipate the evolution of the market conditions nor of the future behaviour of the exporting producers in Vietnam. If justified, provided that a change of circumstances of a lasting nature could be demonstrated a review of duties on that basis could be opened under Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. The Commission thus rejected the claim.

1.5.   Sampling

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

1.5.1.   Sampling of Union producers

• (28) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. The Commission selected a sample on the basis of the highest representative production and sales volumes whilst ensuring a geographical spread. The Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample, but no comments were received.

• (29) As a result, the final sample consisted of three Union producers located in three different Member States. It accounts for over 34 % of the estimated total volume of production and more than 35 % of the total estimated sales of the like product in the Union.

1.5.2.   Sampling of importers

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

• (31) No unrelated importers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample.

1.5.3.   Sampling of exporting producers in Egypt, India, Japan and Vietnam

• (32) To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all exporting producers in Egypt, India, Japan and Vietnam to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation. In addition, the Commission asked the Mission of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the European Union, the Mission of India to the European Union, the Mission of Japan to the European Union and the Mission of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam to the European Union to identify and/or contact other exporting producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.

• (33) With regard to Egypt, one group of exporting producers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. The group consists of a holding, Ezz Steel Company (‘Ezz Steel’), which owns an exporting producer, All Ezz Dekheila Steel Company (‘EZDK’), which in turn owns another exporting producer, Ezz Flat Steel Company (‘EFS’). In view of the low number of replies, the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary.

• (34) With regard to India and Japan, five exporting producers in each country provided the requested information and agreed to be sampled. One of the Japanese companies, however, was not an exporting producer of the product concerned and was disregarded for the purpose of establishing a sample. In accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a sample of two exporting producers in both India and Japan, on the basis of the largest representative volume of exports to the Union which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, all known exporting producers concerned and the authorities of the two countries concerned were consulted on the selection of the samples. No comments on the samples were received.

• (35) Finally, with regard to Vietnam, three companies provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample, however only two of them were exporting producers of the product concerned. In view of the low number of replies, the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary.

1.6.   Individual examination

• (36) No exporting producer requested individual examination under Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation.

1.7.   Questionnaire replies and verification visits

• (37) The Commission sent questionnaires to the three sampled Union producers, the complainant, the sampled exporting producers in Egypt, India, Japan and Vietnam, the known importers and the users. The same questionnaires were made available online ⁵ on the day of initiation.

• (38) The complainant provided in the complaint sufficient prima facie evidence of raw material distortions in India and Vietnam regarding the product under investigation. Therefore, as announced in the Notice of Initiation, the investigation covered those raw material distortions to determine whether to apply the provisions of Article 7(2a) and 7(2b) of the basic Regulation with regard to India and Vietnam. For this reason, the Commission sent additional questionnaires to the Government of India and Vietnam.

• (39) The Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for a provisional determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest. Verification visits pursuant to Article 16 of the basic Regulation were carried out at the premises of the following companies:

Union producers

• — Thyssenkrupp Steel Europe AG, Duisburg, Germany

• — Acciaieria Arvedi S.P.A., Cremona, Italy

• — Tata Steel IJmuiden BV, Velsen-Noord, Netherlands

Related trade and Steel Service Centre

• — Centro Siderurgico Industriale S.R.L., Perugia, Italy

• — Centro Siderurgico Adriatico S.R.L., Perugia, Italy

• — Tata Steel Service Centre Feijen, BV, Maastricht, Netherlands

• — Thyssenkrupp Stahlkontor AG, Essen, Germany

Users

• — Marcegaglia Carbon Steel S.p.A., Gazoldo degli Ippoliti, Italy

• — Network Steel S.L., Madrid, Spain

Exporting producer in Egypt

• — Ezz Steel

Exporting producers in India

• — ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited (‘AMNSIL’)

• — Bhushan Power and Steel Limited, and JSW Steel Limited (‘JSW Group’)

Exporting producers in Japan

• — Tokyo Steel Co. Ltd. (‘Tokyo Steel’)

• — Nippon Steel Corporation (‘Nippon Steel’) and related companies

Exporting producers in Vietnam

• — Formosa Ha Tinh Steel Corporation (‘Formosa’)

• — Hoa Phat Dung Quat Steel Joint Company (‘Hoa Phat’)

1.8.   Investigation period and period considered

• (40) The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024 (‘the investigation period’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2021 to the end of the investigation period (‘the period considered’).

• (41) Following initiation, one exporting producer argued that the year 2020 should be included as the benchmark year in the period considered, in order to fully take into account the impact of market distortions from the COVID-19 crisis on the evolution of imports of hot-rolled flat steel products.

• (42) The Commission considered that the period considered should not be extended to year 2020 since the market and the performance of the Union industry were severely influenced by exceptional circumstances triggered by the COVID-19 crisis. Such extension would not have added value. Moreover, the length of the period considered was consistent with normal investigation practices.

• (43) Another exporting producer claimed that by selecting the investigation period at initiation the Commission left out the entire quarter between the end of the investigation period and the initiation date (8 August 2024) and thereby reduced the period considered to 2021 – Q1.2024 by excluding the full years 2020-2023.

• (44) According to this exporting producer, this decision did not comply with the ‘legal standard prescribed’ by the basic Regulation and, by picking the non-representative year of 2021 as a benchmark it distorted the result of the material injury analysis.

• (45) The Commission provisionally rejected these claims as, first, it is the Commission’s standard practice and it is in its discretion to select an investigation period covering a period of no less than six months immediately prior to the initiation date ⁶ and to consider for the injury assessment three calendar years in addition to the investigation period and not four. Second, the losses incurred by the overall industry, whether in the EU or abroad, in the year 2020 were mainly due to COVID-19 crisis, which resulted in production closures, with several steel plants idled across the world. Once the economy started to recover from COVID-19 as from 2021, the demand for the product under investigation followed suit, which resulted in increases in prices and profits. This means that the year 2020 represents an exceptionally low point, rather than a typical year. Third, since 2021 the supply and demand have stabilised so that a period considered starting in 2021 was considered appropriate. In any event, in line with the Commission's standard practice, the Commission analysed all relevant factors to assess the evolution of the situation of the Union industry over the period considered.

2. PRODUCT UNDER INVESTIGATION, PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

2.1.   Product under investigation

• (46) The product under investigation is certain flat-rolled products of iron, non-alloy steel or other alloy steel, whether or not in coils (including ‘cut-to-length’ and ‘narrow strip’ products), not further worked than hot-rolled, not clad, plated or coated (‘the product under investigation’).

The following products are excluded:

• (1) products of stainless steel and grain-oriented silicon electrical steel;

• (2) products of tool steel and high-speed steel;

• (3) products, not in coils, without patterns in relief, of a thickness exceeding 10 mm and of a width of 600 mm or more; and

• (4) products, not in coils, without patterns in relief, of a thickness of 4,75 mm or more but not exceeding 10 mm and of a width of 2 050 mm or more.

• (47) Hot-rolled flat steel products are produced through hot rolling; this is a metal forming process in which hot metal is passed through one or more pairs of hot rolls to reduce the thickness and to make the thickness uniform, whereby the temperature of the metal is above its recrystallisation temperature. They can be delivered in various forms: in coils (oiled or not oiled, pickled or not pickled), in cut lengths (sheet) or narrow strips.

• (48) There are two main uses of the hot-rolled flat steel products. First, they are the primary material for the production of various value-added downstream steel products, starting with cold-rolled flat and coated steel products. Second, they are used as an industrial input purchased by end users for a variety of applications, including in construction (production of steel tubes), shipbuilding, gas containers, cars, pressure vessels and energy pipelines.

2.2.   Product concerned

• (49) The product concerned is the product under investigation originating in Egypt, India, Japan and Vietnam (‘the countries concerned’), currently classified under CN code(s) 7208 10 00 , 7208 25 00 , 7208 26 00 , 7208 27 00 , 7208 36 00 , 7208 37 00 , 7208 38 00 , 7208 39 00 , 7208 40 00 , 7208 52 10 , 7208 52 99 , 7208 53 10 , 7208 53 90 , 7208 54 00 , 7211 13 00 , 7211 14 00 , 7211 19 00 , ex 7225 19 10 (TARIC code 7225 19 10 90), 7225 30 90 , ex 7225 40 60 (TARIC code 7225 40 60 90), 7225 40 90 , ex 7226 19 10 (TARIC codes 7226 19 10 91, 7226 19 10 95), 7226 91 91 and 7226 91 99 . The CN and TARIC codes are given for information only and without prejudice to a subsequent change in the tariff classification. The scope of this investigation is subject to the definition of the product under investigation as contained above.

2.3.   Like product

• (50) The investigation showed that the following products have the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics as well as the same basic uses:

• — the product concerned when exported to the Union,

• — the product under investigation produced and sold on the domestic market of Egypt, India, Japan, and Vietnam (countries concerned), and

• — the product under investigation produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry.

• (51) The Commission decided at this stage that those products are therefore like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

2.4.   Claims regarding product scope

• (52) One exporting producer (Daido Steel Co. Ltd, ‘Daido’) requested the exclusion of all its types of hot-rolled flat steel products on the basis that they are known in the industry as tool steel and high-speed steel, even though they do not fit the description of tool steel included in the EU Combined Nomenclature (CN). It claimed that its products (i) have significantly distinct physical, technical and chemical properties compared to other types of hot-rolled flat steel products; (ii) are marketed through specialised sales channels with different prices; and (iii) their different specifications and final uses should be included in the definition of the product scope.

• (53) In previous investigations on the same product scope the Commission excluded tool steel and high-speed steel from the product scope of the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel ⁷. The Commission found that there are indeed major physical and chemical differences between other types of the product concerned than tool steel and high-speed steel on the one hand, and tool steel and high-speed steel on the other hand. The Commission confirms such assessment in the investigation at hand. However, the Commission considered that the claim of Daido Steel Co. Ltd to exclude all its types of hot-rolled flat steel products was not specific enough. On these grounds, the Commission rejected Daido’s claim to reject all of its products but confirmed the exclusion of tool steel as provided in Section 2.1. The Commission also considered that the use of the appropriate CN codes was of the responsibility of importer when declaring the goods to the customs authorities.

3. DUMPING

3.1.   Egypt

3.1.1.   Normal value

• (54) The Commission first examined whether the total volume of domestic sales for Ezz Steel was representative, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic sales are representative if the total domestic sales volume of the like product to independent customers on the domestic market per exporting producer represented at least 5 % of its total export sales volume of the product concerned to the Union during the investigation period. On this basis, the total sales by Ezz Steel of the like product on the domestic market were representative.

• (55) The Commission subsequently identified the product types sold domestically that were identical or comparable with the product types sold for export to the Union for the exporting producer with representative domestic sales.

• (56) The Commission then examined whether the domestic sales by the exporting producer on its domestic market for each product type that is identical or comparable with a product type sold for export to the Union were representative, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic sales of an identical or comparable product type are representative if the total volume of domestic sales of that product type to independent customers during the investigation period represents at least 5 % of the total volume of export sales of that product type to the Union.

• (57) The Commission established that the domestic sales of all the product types for each product type that is identical or comparable with a product type sold for export to the Union were representative, except for two product types for which the domestic sales were below 5 % and thus not representative. For these product types, the normal value was constructed in line with the method below.

• (58) The Commission next defined the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market for each product type during the investigation period in order to decide whether to use actual domestic sales for the calculation of the normal value, in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.

• (59) The normal value is based on the actual domestic price per product type, irrespective of whether those sales are profitable or not, if:

• (a) the sales volume of the product type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of this product type; and

• (b) the weighted average sales price of that product type is equal to or higher than the unit cost of production.

• (60) In this case, the normal value is the weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that product type during the investigation period.

• (61) The normal value is the actual domestic price per product type of only the profitable domestic sales of the product types during the investigation period, if:

• (a) the volume of profitable sales of the product type represents 80 % or less of the total sales volume of this type; or

• (b) the weighted average selling price of this product type is below the weighted average unit cost of production.

• (62) The analysis of domestic sales showed that more than 80 % of all domestic sales were profitable and that the weighted average sales price was higher than the weighted average unit cost of production. Accordingly, the normal value was calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales during the investigation period.

• (63) For the two product types which were not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market within the meaning of Article 2(3), first sentence of the basic Regulation, the Commission constructed the normal value in accordance with Article 2(3) and (6) of the basic Regulation.

• (64) The normal value was constructed by adding the following to the average cost of production of the like product of the cooperating exporting producer during the investigation period:

• (a) the weighted average selling, general and administrative (‘SG&A’) expenses incurred by the cooperating exporting producer on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, during the investigation period; and

• (b) the weighted average profit realised by the cooperating exporting producer on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, during the investigation period.

• (65) For the product types not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, the average SG&A expenses and profit of transactions made in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic market for those types were added.

3.1.2.   Export price

• (66) The exporting producer exported to the Union directly to independent customers or to independent traders and the export price was the price actually paid or payable for the product concerned when sold for export to the Union, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

3.1.3.   Comparison

• (67) Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation requires the Commission to make a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price at the same level of trade and to make allowances for differences in factors which affect prices and price comparability. In the case at hand the Commission chose to compare the normal value and the export price of the sampled exporting producers at the ex-works level of trade. As further explained below, where appropriate, the normal value and the export price were adjusted in order to: (i) net them back to the ex-works level; and (ii) make allowances for differences in factors which were claimed, and demonstrated, to affect prices and price comparability

3.1.3.1.   Adjustments made to the normal value

• (68) In order to net the normal value back to the ex-works level of trade, adjustments were made on the account of: transport, insurance, handling, loading, commissions and ancillary costs, where applicable.

• (69) Allowances were made for the following factors affecting prices and price comparability: credit cost and bank charges where applicable.

3.1.3.2.   Adjustments made to the export price

• (70) In order to net the export price back to the ex-works level of trade, adjustments were made on the account of: inland transportation, ocean freight and insurance, and handling and loading.

• (71) Allowances were made for the following factors affecting prices and price comparability: credit cost and bank charges.

• (72) The Commission was made aware by the company of currency conversion issues in Egypt during the investigation period, see Section 1.4.3 above. Considering that the audited accounts of the cooperating exporting producers for the IP were based on the parallel market exchange rate, under a derogation issued by the Egyptian Authorities on 5 September 2023, the parallel exchange rate rather than the official one was used for the purpose of the calculation. Article 2(10)(j) of the basic Regulation provides that the date of sale should ‘normally’ be the date of invoice, and that the date of contract, purchase order or order confirmation might be used if these more appropriately establish the material terms of sale. Firstly, the Commission considered the parallel market exchange rate fluctuation of the EGP and overall significant fall of the EGP against the USD and the euro. Secondly, the Commission considered the price-setting practices of the Egyptian exporting producer, by which the material terms of sale were settled at the time of the sales contract rather than at the date of invoice for export sales. The Commission therefore used the monthly exchange rate, as reported in the financial statements of the exporting producer, applicable at the time of the sales contract to convert the export price from USD into EGP.

3.1.4.   Dumping margin

• (73) The Commission compared for the exporting producer the weighted average normal value of each type of the like product with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned, in accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.

• (74) On this basis, the provisional weighted average dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, calculated for the exporting producer is 12,8 %.

• (75) The level of cooperation in the case of Egypt is high because the exports of the cooperating exporting producer constituted 100 % of the total imports during the investigation period. On this basis, the Commission decided to establish the dumping margin for non-cooperating exporting producers at the level of the only cooperating company.

• (76) The provisional dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:

Table 1

Dumping margins

Company	Provisional dumping margin
Ezz Steel Company	12,8 %
All other imports originating in Egypt	12,8 %

3.2.   India

• (77) The two sampled exporting producers cooperated. On the domestic market, both sampled exporting producers sold the like product directly and through related traders. They exported the product concerned to the Union directly to independent customers and through related parties.

3.2.1.   Normal value

• (78) The Commission first examined for each sampled exporting producer whether the total volume of domestic sales was representative, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic sales are representative if the total domestic sales volume of the like product to independent customers in the domestic market represented at least 5 % of its total export sales volume of the product under investigation during the investigation period. On this basis, the total sales by each sampled exporting producer of the like product on the domestic market were representative.

• (79) The Commission subsequently identified the product types sold domestically that were identical or comparable with the product types sold for export to the Union for the exporting producer with representative domestic sales.

• (80) The Commission then examined whether the identical or comparable product types sold by each of the cooperating exporting producers on their domestic market compared with product types sold for export to the Union were representative, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic sales of an identical or comparable product type are representative if the total volume of domestic sales of that product type to independent customers during the investigation period represents at least 5 % of the total volume of export sales of that product type to the Union.

• (81) The Commission established that the domestic sales of all the product types for each product type that is identical or comparable with a product type sold for export to the Union were representative, except for two product types of AMNSIL, and three product types of the JSW Group, for which there were no domestic sales, or the domestic sales were below 5 % and thus not representative. Where there were no domestic sales of a product type of the like product, normal value was constructed because the domestic sales price of the other sampled producer for that product type was also not available. No other sources for domestic prices of that product were available. For these product types, the normal value was constructed in line with the method below.

• (82) The Commission next defined the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market for each product type during the investigation period in order to decide whether to use actual domestic sales for the calculation of the normal value or whether to disregard the sales outside of the ordinary course of trade by reason of price, in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.

• (83) The cost of manufacturing for each sampled exporting producer was adjusted for the so-called ‘non-production costs’. These were costs which were considered as non-production costs by the sampled exporting producers, and consequently not allocated to the cost of manufacturing. It was found that these costs, even if not allocated, were costs related to the manufacturing of the product under investigation.

• (84) All sampled exporting producers obtained iron ore partly on the Indian market and partly from their captive mines. To comply with the contractual obligations of the mining activity, the sampled exporting producers sold iron ore at a loss to avoid paying penalties or to reduce the penalty cost. The realised loss of iron ore sales was considered as a procurement cost by the Commission and was consequently allocated to the cost of manufacturing.

• (85) The normal value is based on the actual domestic price per product type, irrespective of whether those sales are profitable or not, if:

• (a) the sales volume of the product type sold at a net sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of production represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of this product type; and

• (b) the weighted average selling price of that product type is equal to or higher than the weighted average unit cost of production.

• (86) In this case, the normal value is the weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that product type during the investigation period.

• (87) The normal value is the actual domestic price per product type of only the profitable domestic sales of the product types during the investigation period, if:

• (a) the volume of profitable sales of the product type represents 80 % or less of the total sales volume of this type; or

• (b) the weighted average selling price of this product type is below the weighted average unit cost of production.

• (88) When a product type was not sold in representative quantities or not sold at all on the domestic market within the meaning of Article 2(3), first sentence of the basic Regulation, the Commission constructed the normal value in accordance with Article 2(3) and (6) of the basic Regulation.

• (89) Normal value was constructed per product type by adding the following to the average cost of production of the like product of the investigated exporting producers during the investigation period:

• (a) the weighted average selling, general and administrative (‘SG&A’) expenses incurred by the investigated exporting producers on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, during the investigation period; and

• (b) the weighted average profit realised by the investigated exporting producers on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, during the investigation period.

• (90) For the product types not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, the average SG&A expenses and profit of transactions made in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic market for those types were added. For the product types not sold at all on the domestic market, or where no sales were found in the ordinary course of trade, the weighted average SG&A expenses and profit of all transactions made in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic market were added.

3.2.2.   Export price

• (91) The sampled exporting producers exported to the Union either directly to independent customers or through related traders.

• (92) In case the exporting producer exported the product concerned directly to independent customers in the Union, the export price was the price actually paid or payable for the product concerned when sold for export to the Union, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

• (93) In addition to direct sales, one sampled exporting producer also sold the product concerned to the Union to related parties, which then further processed the product concerned. For these sales the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation because the Commission could verify that the prices between related parties were at arm’s length and reflected market prices.

3.2.3.   Comparison

• (94) Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation requires the Commission to make a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price at the same level of trade and to make allowances for differences in factors which affect prices and price comparability. In the case at hand the Commission chose to compare the normal value and the export price of the sampled exporting producers at the ex-works level of trade. As further explained below, where appropriate, the normal value and the export price were adjusted in order to: (i) net them back to the ex-works level; and (ii) make allowances for differences in factors which were claimed, and demonstrated, to affect prices and price comparability

3.2.3.1.   Adjustments made to the normal value

• (95) In order to net the normal value back to the ex-works level of trade, adjustments were made on the account of: inland transportation and insurance, and handling and loading.

• (96) Allowances were made for the following factors affecting prices and price comparability: credit cost and packaging costs.

3.2.3.2.   Adjustments made to the export price

• (97) In order to net the export price back to the ex-works level of trade, adjustments were made on the account of: inland transportation, ocean freight and insurance, and handling and loading.

• (98) Allowances were made for the following factors affecting prices and price comparability: credit cost, commissions and bank charges.

• (99) All sampled exporting producers made a claim under Article 2(10)(b) of the basic Regulation for a duty drawback adjustment, arguing that the existence of a duty drawback scheme for certain raw materials would imply that all their domestic sales would incorporate an indirect tax compared to the export sales. The exporting producers were however unable to demonstrate that the mere existence of the duty drawback scheme would affect price comparability. The exporting producers could not demonstrate that the duty drawback amount was factored in the selling price. This claim could therefore not be accepted.

• (100) One sampled exporting producer made a claim under Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation for transport costs between the production plant and the different warehouses in the country. The exporting producer was however unable to demonstrate that an extra transport cost would affect price comparability. The exporting producer could not demonstrate that the extra transport cost did influence the selling price. This claim could therefore not be accepted.

3.2.4.   Dumping

• (101) For the sampled exporting producers, the Commission compared the weighted average normal value of each type of the like product with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned, in accordance with Articles 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.

• (102) On this basis, the weighted average dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, calculated for the exporting producer is for the two sampled exporting producers were 0,77 % and 1,76 %, i.e. below the 2 % of the export price, which is de minimis threshold set out in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, the Commission concluded that the country-wide dumping margin was also below de minimis. In these circumstances, the Commission intends to terminate the current proceeding as regards imports of the product concerned originating in India, in accordance with Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation.

• (103) Interested parties are invited to comment on the Commission’s intention to terminate the proceeding vis-à-vis India within 15 days of the publication of this Regulation.

3.3.   Japan

3.3.1.   Normal value

• (104) To establish the normal value, the Commission first examined whether the total volume of domestic sales for the sampled exporting producers was representative, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic sales are representative if the total domestic sales volume of the like product to independent customers on the domestic market per exporting producer represented at least 5 % of its total export sales volume of the product concerned to the Union during the investigation period. On this basis, the total sales by each exporting producer of the like product on the domestic market were representative.

• (105) The Commission subsequently identified the product types sold domestically that were identical or comparable with the product types sold for export to the Union for the exporting producers with representative domestic sales.

• (106) The Commission then examined whether the domestic sales by the sampled exporting producers on the domestic market for each product type that is identical or comparable with a product type sold for export to the Union were representative, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic sales of such a product type are representative if the total volume of domestic sales of that product type to independent customers during the investigation period represents at least 5 % of the total volume of export sales of the identical or comparable product type to the Union.

• (107) The Commission established that the domestic sales of all the product types for each product type that is identical or comparable with a product type sold for export to the Union were representative, except for four product types of Tokyo Steel and two product types of Nippon Steel for which there were no domestic sales, or the domestic sales were below 5 % and thus not representative. Where there were no domestic sales of a product type of the like product, normal value was constructed because the domestic sales price of the other sampled producer for that product type could not be disclosed in a meaningful manner without breaching the confidentiality of that producer. The Commission did not find any other information on the prices of these products. For these non-representative product types, the normal value was constructed in line with the method below.

• (108) The Commission next defined the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market for each product type during the investigation period to decide whether to use actual domestic sales for the calculation of the normal value, in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.

• (109) The normal value is based on the actual domestic price per product type, irrespective of whether those sales are profitable or not, if:

• (a) the sales volume of the product type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of this product type; and

• (b) the weighted average sales price of that product type is equal to or higher than the weighted average unit cost of production.

• (110) In this case, the normal value is the weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that product type during the investigation period.

• (111) The normal value is the actual domestic price per product type of only the profitable domestic sales of the product types during the investigation period, if:

• (a) the volume of profitable sales of the product type represents 80 % or less of the total sales volume of this type; or

• (b) the weighted average selling price of this product type is below the weighted average unit cost of production.

• (112) The analysis of domestic sales showed that for both sampled exporting producers the volume of profitable sales of some product types during the investigation period represented less than 80 % of the total sales volume of this type. Accordingly, for these product types, the normal value was calculated as a weighted average of the profitable sales only. For all other product types the scenario outlined in recital (109) was applicable, and the normal value was calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales during the investigation period.

• (113) For the product types of the sampled exporting producers for which there were no or insufficient sales of a product type of the like product in the ordinary course of trade or where a product type was not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, the Commission constructed the normal value in accordance with Article 2(3) and (6) of the basic Regulation.

• (114) Normal value was constructed by adding the following to the average cost of production of the like product of the sampled exporting producers during the investigation period:

• (a) the weighted average selling, general and administrative (‘SG&A’) expenses incurred by the two exporting producers on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, during the investigation period; and

• (b) the weighted average profit realised by the two exporting producers on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, during the investigation period.

• (115) For the product types not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, the average SG&A expenses and profit of transactions made in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic market for those types were added. Where there were no domestic sales of a product type of the like product, normal value was constructed because the domestic sales price of other sampled producer for that product type could not be disclosed in a meaningful manner without breaching the confidentiality of that producer.

• (116) The Commission notes that given some shortcomings in the information submitted for one of Nippon Steel’s domestic traders and considering the limited volumes of impacted domestic sales, the Commission decided to use information from Nippon Steel and its other related companies as a reference for that domestic trader in order to establish the normal value. Due to the sensitive nature of the relevant data and explanations, further details were provided to Nippon Steel in the specific disclosure.

3.3.2.   Export price

• (117) Nippon Steel exported to the Union either directly to independent customers or through related companies acting as an importer, while Tokyo Steel only exported to the Union directly to independent customers.

• (118) In case the exporting producer exported the product concerned directly to independent customers in the Union, the export price was the price actually paid or payable for the product concerned when sold for export to the Union, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

• (119) In case the exporting producer exported the product concerned to the Union through related companies acting as importers, the export price was established based on the price at which the imported product was first resold to independent customers in the Union, in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. In this case, adjustments to the price were made for all costs incurred between importation and resale, including SG&A expenses, and for profits accruing.

3.3.3.   Comparison

• (120) Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation requires the Commission to make a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price at the same level of trade and to make allowances for differences in factors which affect prices and price comparability. In the case at hand the Commission chose to compare the normal value and the export price of the sampled exporting producers at the ex-works level of trade. As further explained below, where appropriate, the normal value and the export price were adjusted in order to: (i) net them back to the ex-works level; and (ii) make allowances for differences in factors which were claimed, and demonstrated, to affect prices and price comparability.

3.3.3.1.   Adjustments made to the normal value

• (121) In order to net the normal value back to the ex-works level of trade, adjustments were made on the account of: inland transportation; ocean freight and insurance; handling, loading and ancillary costs; and packing.

• (122) Allowances were made for the following factors affecting prices and price comparability: credit cost; bank charges; discounts and rebates; after-sales costs; and commissions.

3.3.3.2.   Adjustments made to the export price

• (123) In order to net the export price back to the ex-works level of trade, adjustments were made on the account of: inland transportation; ocean freight and insurance; handling loading and ancillary costs; packing; and safeguard duties.

• (124) Allowances were made for the following factors affecting prices and price comparability: credit cost; bank charges; discounts; after-sales costs; and commissions.

• (125) Nippon Steel claimed an additional adjustment to account for an alleged price difference between sales to different sectors, where prices would be on average significantly higher to one sector (‘sector A’) than another (‘sector B’). The suggested adjustment would be based on the average price difference between the two sectors for all sales on the domestic market, without differentiating between sales period, product type or whether the customer was related or independent. The resulting overall price difference in yen per tonne would be deducted from the sales price by multiplying this price difference with the quantity sold to sector A on a transaction basis. During the on-spot verification, Nippon Steel provided some general information explaining why there would normally be a price difference between the two sectors.

• (126) However, the company was (a) unable to quantify the underlying elements of the price difference, and only showed an overall price difference (the total average price to sector A minus the total average price to sector B during the investigation period); (b) unable to provide specific documentation explaining the price difference on a product or customer basis; (c) unable to explain why, although for some transactions the price on a product type basis was indeed higher for sector A as alleged by Nippon Steel, for other transactions the price was actually higher for sector B.

• (127) In addition, the price difference between sales to the two sectors on a product type basis was inconsistent and ranged from a negative two-digit percentage to a positive two-digit percentage, both monthly as well as during the investigation period as a whole. Moreover, the price difference between the two sectors could differ from month to month. For example, for one product type, the Commission noticed that the price for sector A was indeed more expensive than for sector B in one month, cheaper the next and again more expensive the month after that.

• (128) Finally, although the exporting producer Nippon Steel provided information on sales to the two different sectors, the Commission did not receive such information from any of its related entities. Therefore, in addition to the above-mentioned issues, it was not possible to analyse the alleged price difference on the level of the related entities and the impact on the final sales price to independent customers on the domestic market.

• (129) For the above reasons, the Commission rejected Nippon Steel’s adjustment claim.

3.3.4.   Dumping margin

• (130) For the sampled exporting producers the Commission compared the weighted average normal value of each type of the like product with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned, in accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.

• (131) On this basis, the provisional weighted average dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:

Company	Provisional dumping margin
Nippon Steel Corporation	42,5 %
Tokyo Steel Co. Ltd.	6,9 %

• (132) For the cooperating exporting producers outside the sample, the Commission calculated the weighted average dumping margin, in accordance with Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation.

• (133) On this basis, the provisional dumping margin of the cooperating exporting producers outside the sample is 32,9 %.

• (134) For all other exporting producers in Japan, the Commission established the dumping margin on the basis of the facts available, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. To this end, the Commission determined the level of cooperation of the exporting producers. The level of cooperation is the volume of exports of the cooperating exporting producers to the Union expressed as proportion of the total imports from the country concerned to the Union in the investigation period, as established on the basis of Eurostat.

• (135) The level of cooperation in this case is high because the exports of the cooperating exporting producers constituted 100 % of the total imports during the investigation period. On this basis, the Commission decided to establish the dumping margin for non-cooperating exporting producers at the level of the cooperating sampled company with the highest dumping margin.

• (136) The provisional dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:

Table 2

Dumping margins

Company	Provisional dumping margin
Nippon Steel Corporation	42,5 %
Tokyo Steel Co. Ltd.	6,9 %
Other cooperating companies: — Daido Steel Co., Ltd. — JFE Steel Corporation	32,9 %
All other imports originating in Japan	42,5 %

3.4.   Vietnam

3.4.1.   Normal value

• (137) The Commission first examined whether the total volume of domestic sales of by each cooperating exporting producer (Formosa and Hoa Phat) was representative, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic sales are representative if the total domestic sales volume of the like product to independent customers on the domestic market per exporting producer represented at least 5 % of its total export sales volume of the product concerned to the Union during the investigation period. On this basis, the total sales by Formosa and Hoa Phat of the like product on the domestic market were found representative.

• (138) The Commission subsequently identified the product types sold domestically that were identical or comparable with the product types sold for export to the Union for the exporting producers with representative domestic sales.

• (139) The Commission then examined whether the domestic sales by each cooperating exporting producer on its domestic market for each product type that is identical or comparable with a product type sold for export to the Union were representative, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic sales of a product type are representative if the total volume of domestic sales of that product type to independent customers during the investigation period represents at least 5 % of the total volume of export sales of the identical or comparable product type to the Union.

• (140) The Commission established that in case of Formosa, the domestic sales of all the product types for each product type that is identical or comparable with a product type sold for export to the Union were representative. In case of Hoa Phat, the domestic sales of all the product types for each product type that is identical or comparable with a product type sold for export to the Union were representative, except for two product types for which there were no domestic sales, or the domestic sales were below 5 % and thus not representative. Where there were no domestic sales of a product type of the like product, normal value was constructed because the domestic sales price of the other sampled producer for that product type could not be disclosed in a meaningful manner without breaching the confidentiality of that producer. The Commission did not find any other information on the prices of these products. For these product types, the normal value was constructed in line with the method below in this section.

• (141) The Commission next defined the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market for each product type during the investigation period in order to decide whether to use actual domestic sales for the calculation of the normal value, in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.

• (142) The normal value is based on the actual domestic price per product type, irrespective of whether those sales are profitable or not, if:

• (a) the sales volume of the product type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of this product type; and

• (b) the weighted average sales price of that product type is equal to or higher than the unit cost of production.

• (143) In this case, the normal value is the weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that product type during the investigation period.

• (144) The normal value is the actual domestic price per product type of only the profitable domestic sales of the product types during the investigation period, if:

• (a) the volume of profitable sales of the product type represents 80 % or less of the total sales volume of this type; or

• (b) the weighted average selling price of this product type is below the weighted average unit cost of production.

• (145) The analysis of domestic sales showed that in case of Formosa, the volume of profitable sales of all the product types represented in the investigation period less than 80 % of the total sales volume of this type. Accordingly, for these product types, the normal value was calculated as a weighted average of the profitable sales only.

• (146) In case of Hoa Phat, the sales volume of the product types, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of this product type; and the weighted average sales price of that product type was equal to or higher than the unit cost of production. Accordingly, the normal value was calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales during the investigation period.

• (147) For the product types of Formosa and Hoa Phat for which there were no or insufficient sales of a product type of the like product in the ordinary course of trade or where a product type was not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market according to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, the Commission constructed the normal value in accordance with Article 2(3) and (6) of the basic Regulation because the domestic sales price of the other sampled producer for that product type could not be disclosed in a meaningful manner without breaching the confidentiality of that producer. The Commission did not find any other information on the prices of these products.

• (148) Normal value was constructed by adding the following to the average cost of production of the like product of Formosa and Hoa Phat during the investigation period:

• (a) the weighted average selling, general and administrative (‘SG&A’) expenses incurred by the two cooperating exporting producers on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, during the investigation period; and

• (b) the weighted average profit realised by the cooperating exporting producers on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, during the investigation period.

• (149) For the product types not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, the average SG&A expenses and profit of transactions made in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic market for those types were added. For the product types not sold at all on the domestic market, the weighted average SG&A expenses and profit of all transactions made in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic market were added.

3.4.2.   Export price

• (150) The cooperating exporting producers exported to the Union either directly to independent customers or through a related trader in a third country.

• (151) Therefore, the export price was the price actually paid or payable for the product concerned when sold for export to the Union, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

3.4.3.   Comparison

• (152) Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation requires the Commission to make a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price at the same level of trade and to make allowances for differences in factors which affect prices and price comparability. In the case at hand the Commission chose to compare the normal value and the export price of the sampled exporting producers at the ex-works level of trade. As further explained below, where appropriate, the normal value and the export price were adjusted in order to: (i) net them back to the ex-works level; and (ii) make allowances for differences in factors which were claimed, and demonstrated, to affect prices and price comparability

3.4.3.1.   Adjustments made to the normal value

• (153) In order to net the normal value back to the ex-works level of trade, adjustments were made on the account of: inland transportation, ocean freight and insurance, and handling and loading.

• (154) Allowances were made for the following factors affecting prices and price comparability: credit cost and bank charges.

3.4.3.2.   Adjustments made to the export price

• (155) In order to net the export price back to the ex-works level of trade, adjustments were made on the account of: inland transportation, ocean freight and insurance, and handling and loading.

• (156) Allowances were made for the following factors affecting prices and price comparability: credit cost and bank charges.

3.4.4.   Dumping margins

• (157) For the cooperating exporting producers, the Commission compared the weighted average normal value of each type of the like product with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned, in accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.

• (158) On this basis, the provisional weighted average dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:

Company	Provisional dumping margin
Formosa Ha Tinh Steel Corporation	12,1 %
Hoa Phat Dung Quat Steel Joint Company	0 %