9.8.2011 Official Journal of the European Union L 20411 COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 792/2011 of 5 August 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain ring binder mechanisms originating in Thailand THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), (the basic Regulation) and in particular Article 9(4) thereof, Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (the Commission) after having consulted the Advisory Committee, Whereas: () ) 1. PROVISIONAL MEASURES The Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 118/2011 of 10 February 2011 (%) (the provisional Regulation) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain ring binder mechanisms originating in Thailand. The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 6 April 2010 by Ring Alliance Ringbuch- technik GmbH (the complainant) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 % of the total Union production of certain ring binder mechanisms (RBM). The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting there from, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding. It is recalled that, as set out in recital 7 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 (‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the inves- tigation period (injury investigation period). 2. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures (provisional disclosure), several interested parties made written 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. 0] L 0] L 37, 11.2.2011, p. 2. () submissions making known their views on the provi- sional findings. The parties who so requested, in particular two importers and the Thai producer, were granted the opportunity to be heard. The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings with respect to dumping, injury, causality and Union interest. In addition to the verifications mentioned in recital 6 of the provisional Regulation, a further verifi- cation was carried out at the premises of Rima Benelux Holding BV, the only user that had cooperated in the investigation by replying to a user’s questionnaire. All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain ring binder mechanisms orig- inating in Thailand and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty. They were also granted a period of time within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure. The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and taken into account where appropriate. 3. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT In the absence of any comments concerning the product concerned and the like product, recitals 8 to 11 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 4. DUMPING 4.1. Normal Value It is recalled that, as explained in recital 14 of the provi- sional Regulation, only one Thai exporting producer cooperated in the investigation and that its exports to the Union during the IP accounted for all Thai exports to the Union. The exporting producer and one cooperating unrelated importer claimed that the independent external expert who assisted the Commission during the on-spot visit to the exporting producer made some calculation errors in his report. One of the tasks of the expert was to examine the nickel coating process and the amount of raw materials consumed by the exporting producer in the different production phases. As mentioned in recital 15 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation revealed that the exporting producer provided incomplete and incorrect information with regard to significant elements of its cost of production and other raw materials. The allegations made by the exporting