28.10.2010 Official Journal of the European Union L 282/1 II (Non-legislative acts) REGULATIONS COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 964/2010 of 25 October 2010 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain aluminium road wheels originating in the People’s Republic of China THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, (4 The Commission continued to seek information it Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, deemed necessary for its definitive findings. (5) It is recalled that, as set out in recital (18) of the provi- . . _ sional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and Having regard to Council Regul§t10n (EC) No 1225/2_009 of injury covered the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 30 Novemb.er 2009 on protection against dumped 1mports 2009 (‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination from countries not members of the European Community (') of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered (the basic Regulation’) and in particular Article 9 and 14(3) the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the IP (the thereof, period considered)). Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European ) ) ) Commission after having consulted the Advisory Committee, (6)  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 Whereas: d : : s B uty on imports of certain aluminium wheels originating in the PRC and the definitive collection of the amounts 1. PROVISIONAL MEASURES secured by way of the provisional duty. They were also o ) , granted a period of time within which they could make (1) The Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 404/2010 () representations subsequent to this disclosure. (the provisional Regulation) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain aluminium wheels originating in the People’s Republic of China (7). The oral and written comments submitted by the (PRC). interested parties were considered and taken into account where appropriate. (2)  The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 30 June 2009 by the Association of European (i L. usi (i Wheel Manufacturers (EUWA) (the complainant) on 2.1. ?cope ok investigation. Inclusion of imports behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in rom Turkey . 0 . . this case more t.hz%n 50 % of the total Union producFlon 8 One party, representing the interests of exporting of certain aluminium wheels. The complaint contained d ; . . ) ) producers, claimed that imports of the product evidence of dumping of the said product and of . . e . . . concerned from Turkey should be included in the material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered f . I o S L . scope of the present investigation. sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding. 2. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE (9)  Concerning the non-inclusion in the complaint of . _ imports originating in Turkey, it should be noted that (3)  Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and at initiation stage, there was no sufficient evidence of considerations on the basis of which it was decided to dumping, injury and causal link from this country to impose provisional measures (provisional disclosure)), justify the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding on several interested parties made written submissions such imports. making known their views on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested were granted the oppor- tunity to be heard. (10)  To the contrary, the complainants submitted information () O] L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. () O] L 117, 11.5.2010, p. 64. that imports from Turkey of the product concerned were at non-dumped prices (see non-confidential version of the complaint, page 13, point 5, and annex 5.1.a.).