24.5.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 13431 COMMISSION DECISION of 23 May 2012 terminating the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India (2012/278/EV) THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (') (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 14 thereof, After consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: 1. PROCEDURE 1.1. Provisional measures The European Commission (the Commission’), by Regu- lation (EU) No 115/2012 (3 (the provisional Regu- lation’), imposed a provisional countervailing duty on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India (India’ or ‘the country concerned’). The proceeding was initiated on 13 May 2011 (3, following a complaint lodged on 31 March 2011 by the European Industrial Fasteners Institute (EIFI) (the complainant’), on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of total Union production of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof. As set out in recital 21 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of subsidy and injury covered the period from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 (the investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2008 to the end of the IP (‘the period considered). 1.2. Subsequent procedure Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional countervailing measures (‘provisional disclosure), several interested parties made written submissions making known their views on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard. L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93. L 38, 11.2.2012, p. 6. C 142, 13.5.2011, p. 36. () (10) The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings. The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and, where appro- priate, the provisional findings were modified accord- ingly. Subsequently, all parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to terminate the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India and to release the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty (final disclosure’). All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on this final disclosure. 2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT After final disclosure, one party reiterated its comments regarding the definition of the product concerned and the like product provided in recitals 22 and 23 of the provisional Regulation claiming that certain product types should be excluded from the product scope of this investigation. However, the investigation has confirmed that the different product types are covered by the description of the product concerned and like product and share the same basic physical, chemical and technical character- istics and end uses and therefore belong to the same product category. Therefore, this claim was rejected. In the absence of other comments concerning the product concerned and the like product, recitals 22 and 23 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 3. SUBSIDISATION 3.1. Introduction In recital 24 of the provisional Regulation, reference was made to the following schemes, which allegedly involve the granting of subsidies: (a) Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPBS); (b) Advance Authorisation Scheme (AAS);