8.11.2013 Official Journal of the European Union L 298/1 (Non-legislative acts) REGULATIONS COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1106/2013 of 5 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain stainless steel wires originating in India THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (the basic Regulation’) (1), and in particular Article 9 thereof, Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: A. PROCEDURE 1. Provisional Measures () On 3 May 2013, the European Commission (the Commission’) imposed, by means of Regulation (EU) No 418/2013 () (the provisional Regulation’), a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports into the European Union (the Union’) of certain stainless steel wires originating in India (‘the country concerned). (2)  The investigation was initiated following a complaint lodged on 28 June 2012 by the European Confederation of Tron and Steel Industries (Eurofer) (‘the complainant) on behalf of Union producers representing more than 50 % of the total Union production of certain stainless steel wires. () O] L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. () O] L 126, 8.5.2013, p. 1. (3) () ) O] O] In the parallel anti-subsidy investigation, the Commission imposed a provisional countervailing duty on imports of certain stainless steel wires originating in the country concerned by means of Regulation (EU) No 419/2013 () and a definitive countervailing duty by means of Regu- lation (EU) No 861/2013 (4). 2. Parties concerned by the investigation At the provisional stage of the investigation, sampling was applied for the Indian exporting producers and the Union producers. At the provisional stage, sampling was envisaged also regarding unrelated importers. However, as two out of three importers chosen for the sample did not submit questionnaire replies, sampling for importers could not be applied. Therefore, all available information pertaining to all cooperating importers was used to reach definitive findings; in particular as far the Union interest is concerned. One exporting producer alleged that since no sales from non-complainants were used for the determination of the injury suffered by the Union industry, the selected sample of Union producers could not be considered represen- tative. That claim was rejected because the sample was selected on the basis of the replies received from all cooperating Union producers regardless their support for the complaint at the stage of determination of standing, and was made on the basis of production volumes. One exporting producer, related to a Union producer, opposed the complaint, and requested individual examin- ation, because it was not included in the sample of exporting producers, as a result of its low export volumes. The Union producer itself was also not included in the Union industry sample because of its low production volumes. The individual examination was granted by the Commission, but the exporting producer withdrew its request. L 126, 8.5.2013, p. 19. L 240, 7.9.2013, p. 1.