2000/242/EC: Commission Decision of 24 March 2000 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding on imports of ferro-chrome with a carbon content by weight of maximum 0,5 % (low carbon ferro-chrome) originating in Russia and Kazakhstan (notified under document number C(2000) 798)
25. 3. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 76/23 COMMISSION DECISION of 24 March 2000 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding on imports of ferro-chrome with a carbon content by weight of maximum 0,5 % (low carbon ferro-chrome) originating in Russia and Kazakhstan (notified under document number C(2000) 798) (2000/242/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to the Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 905/98 (2), and in particular Articles 9 and 11(2) thereof, Having consulted the Advisory Committee, Whereas: A. PROCEDURE (1) (2) (3) 1. Measures in force By Regulation (EEC) No 2717/93 (3) the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty of ECU 0,31 per kg net on imports of ferro-chrome with a carbon content by weight of maximum 0,5 % originating in Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine. 2. Request for a review Following the publication, in April 1998, of a notice of the impending expiry of the measures in force (4), the Commission received a request for a review of the anti- dumping measures applicable to imports of low carbon ferro-chrome (hereinafter referred to as ‘LCFC’) origin- ating in Kazakhstan and Russia, lodged by the Comité de Liaison des Industries de Ferro-Alliages (CLIFA or Euro- alliages) on behalf of the only Community producer of the product ‘applicant concerned (hereinafter Community producer’). the The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in the continua- tion or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Community industry. The evidence contained in the request was considered sufficient to justify the opening of a review investigation. On 2 October 1998 the (1) OJ L 56, 6. 3. 1996, p. 1. (2) OJ L 128, 30. 4. 1998, p. 18. (3) OJ L 246, 2. 10. 1993, p. 1. (4) OJ C 100, 2. 4. 1998, p. 6. (4) (5) (6) Commission, after consulting the Advisory Committee, announced the initiation of an investigation (5) pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, (herein- after referred to as ‘the basic Regulation’). 3. Investigation advised applicant The Commission officially Community producer, the exporting producers and importers known to be concerned as well as their asso- ciations, the representatives of the exporting countries, the end-users known to be concerned and their associa- tions of the initiation of the review. the Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation. The Commission sent questionnaires to all parties In addition, a producer in known to be concerned. Zimbabwe, which was chosen as the analogue country, was likewise advised of the initiation and sent a ques- tionnaire. The Commission received questionnaire replies from the applicant Community producer, all the Zimbabwean three Russian exporting producers, producer, one related importer, two unrelated importers and three users of the product concerned. One associa- tion of users made its views known in writing and two further users provided certain information, even though not replying to the questionnaires. No replies were received from the Kazakh producers. All parties which so requested were granted a hearing. The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the purposes of a determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injurious dumping and of Community interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following compa- nies: Community producer — Elektrowerk Weisweiler GmbH, Eschweiler-Weis- weiler, Germany (5) OJ C 303, 2. 10. 1998, p. 4. L 76/24 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 25. 3. 2000 Producer in the analogue country — Zimbabwe Alloys Limited, Harare, Zimbabwe therefore be considered a like product within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. Unrelated importers — Nococarbon, Rotterdam, the Netherlands — Syncret BV, Rotterdam, the Netherlands Users — AB Sandvik Steel, Sandviken, Sweden — Acciaierie Venete SPA, Padova, Italy — ALZ NV, Genk, Belgium (7) The investigation of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping was based on information pertaining to the period from 1 January 1998 to 30 September 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IP’). (13) (12) Furthermore, the investigation has shown that the LCFC produced in Zimbabwe and sold on the Zimbabwean market is alike in all respects to the LCFC exported to the Community from the countries concerned and the LCFC produced by the Community industry. It should therefore also be considered as a like product within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. C. CONTINUATION OF DUMPING 1. Preliminary remarks In order to ascertain whether there were grounds for a of likelihood recurrence dumping, verified whether dumping had continued during the IP. continuation of the Commission first and/or B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE PRODUCT 1. Product under consideration 2. Russia 2. 1. Analogue country (8) (9) (10) It is an alloy of The product under consideration is ferro-chrome with a carbon content in weight of maximum 0,5 % (herein- after ‘LCFC’). iron and chromium produced by reducing chromium ores with silicon and/ or carbon in an electric furnace. It is produced in a two-stage (sometimes three-stage) process and the chro- mium content of the alloy varies according to the type of ores used. The carbon content is determined by the materials added during the second stage of the produc- tion process and its percentage may vary significantly. There are two grades of LCFC: normal grade with a carbon content of more than 0,05 % but less or equal to 0,5 % and special grade with a carbon content of less or equal to 0,05 %. The prices of LCFC are normally expressed in a value per kg of chromium contained in the alloy and vary according to the carbon content: the lower the carbon content the higher the price. The product under consideration is mainly used for the production of high-tensile structural and heat and acid resistant steel containing a high chromium content. It is also used to adjust the chromium content in stainless steel and its use is necessary for steel where, for plant reasons, removal of carbon is not possible during steel manufacturing. These uses are independent of precise carbon contents, so that products with different grades of carbon content are to a large extent interchangeable. 2. Like product (11) The investigation has confirmed that the product manu- factured by the applicant Community producer and sold on the Community market is alike in all respects to the LCFC imported from the countries concerned. It should (14) (15) (16) (17) In establishing normal value, account was taken of the fact that Zimbabwe was envisaged in the notice of initia- tion of this review as an appropriate market economy third country. One importer suggested Turkey as an alternative market economy third country. The Commis- sion sought cooperation in Turkey and sent a question- naire to the only known producer. However, the sole Turkish producer of LCFC, although it declared its will- ingness to cooperate, did not finally provide sufficient information for the determination of normal value. Therefore, it was decided to maintain Zimbabwe as an appropriate market economy third country because the production was sizeable, the production process was similar the company produced the two grades involved in the investigation, the domestic sales were representative as compared to the imports concerned to the EC and Zimbabwe was used as an analogue market in the original investigation. to that practised in Russia, 2. 2. Normal value In order to establish normal value, in a first step, it was determined that the total volume of domestic sales of the product under consideration was representative in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, i. e. that these sales represented more than 5 % of the sales volume of the product under consideration exported from Russia to the Community. In a second step, it was then found that for each grade of the product under consideration, domestic sales of the corresponding grade in Zimbabwe were representative, as they constituted 5 % or more of the volume of exports of the product under consideration originating in Russia. 25. 3. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 76/25 (18) Furthermore, it was determined that all sales had been made in the ordinary course of trade in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. 2. 3. Export price D. LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF DUMPING (25) Further to the previous analysis demonstrating that dumping did not occur during the IP, the Commission recurrence of dumping, examined the likelihood of should the measures applicable to the imports in ques- tion be removed. (19) (20) (21) (22) Export sales of LCFC to the Community from Russia fell sharply following the imposition of the anti-dumping duties, to a nearly insignificant level. 1. Russia In the responses to the questionnaires, only one Russian exporter declared some export sales of special grade LCFC to the Community. Furthermore, it was found that the Russian exporting producers sold to unrelated non- Russian traders and consequently did not know the final destination of their exports. In light of the fact that Eurostat data appeared more complete as they showed imports of both grades of LCFC, it was considered appropriate to use these data for the determination of the export price. It should be noted that the information gathered from the one Russian exporting producer who had declared exports to the Community confirmed the price level determined by Eurostat. (26) (27) 2. 4. Comparison The weighted average normal value for each grade was compared to the weighted average export price of the corresponding grade of LCFC, in accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, at fob exporting country port level. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between normal value and export price, account was taken of differences in factors, which were claimed and demon- strated to affect comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. In this respect, adjust- ments were made for differences in the carbon and chromium content. Adjustments also were made for inland and ocean freight, loading, ancillary and other costs. insurance handling, 2. 5. Dumping margin (23) The comparison between the normal value and the export price for both grades of LCFC did not reveal the existence of dumping. Exports to third countries were assessed, in particular to the United States of America, where the Russian exporting producers export significant quantities of LCFC. On the basis of the information supplied by the Russian exporting producers and official USA statistics, it was found that the Russian export prices to the USA, adjusted to ensure a fair price comparison (including adjustments for differences in carbon and chromium content), were higher in Zimbabwe compared on an fob exporting country port basis and for both grades. than the normal value it appeared that In addition, the Commission examined the likely pricing followed by the Russian strategy which may be exporting producers in case of a resumption of imports towards the EC market if measures were removed. In this respect, the Russian exporting producers have a significant spare capacity which could eventually be used and the resulting production may be directed to the Community by reason of geographical proximity and the need to acquire foreign currency. However, as shown above, the small quantities of Russian LCFC exports during the IP have been found not to be dumped. In these circumstances, in particular in light of the present applicable significant anti-dumping duty, following the removal of these duties, the Russian exporting producers would lower their export prices to a degree that they would be dumped. More to the contrary, the Russian exporting producers would have scope for increases in their export prices. it would appear unlikely that, (28) Indeed, if any resumption of Russian exports were to take place, it is, given the quality of the Russian prod- ucts, more likely to be in competition with imports from Turkey, Zimbabwe, South Africa and the People's Republic of China, which cover the middle segment of the market, rather than the upper segment where the Community industry is present. The prevailing prices in this segment are on average higher than the normal value and no dumping would be likely to occur at this level on sales aimed at this segment. 3. Kazakhstan 2. Kazakhstan (24) The information available to the Commission did not indicate the Community market during the IP. As a result, no dumping determination has been undertaken. that Kazakhstan exported had to (29) The available information for Kazakhstan indicates the existence of massive capacities of chromium ore reserves and important LCFC production capacities. L 76/26 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 25. 3. 2000 (30) Nevertheless, the potential for LCFC production is strongly reduced because of outdated equipment and the failure to privatise, restructure and modernise the industry. Moreover, the bulk of the remaining produc- tion concentrates on medium and high carbon ferro- to the present chrome, which are not proceeding. For sales of the available price information from US import statistics regarding Kazakh exports to the US market indicates that the likelihood of recurrence of dumping on the Community market is rather remote. the product concerned, subject It, therefore, appears unlikely that the Kazakh industry would resume imports to the EC in significant quantities and that injurious dumping would reoccur, were the measures allowed to lapse. 3. Conclusion (31) On the basis of the above facts and considerations, it is concluded that dumping is unlikely to reoccur for both Russia and Kazakhstan, should the measures in force be removed. E. CONTINUATION AND RECURRENCE OF INJURY AND COMMUNITY INTEREST (32) In view of the conclusion concerning dumping, it was not considered necessary to develop the aspects relating to the likelihood of continuation and/or recurrence of injury and the Community interest arising from the investigation. (34) All parties concerned were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the termination of the existing measures would be based. They were granted a period within which to make repre- sentations subsequent to the disclosure. (35) (36) Representations received further to the disclosure did not however provide any new elements which could affect the above analysis. In view of the findings set out above, the Commission therefore considers the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 2717/93 and currently in force should be repealed for Kazakhstan and Russia, that HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Sole Article The anti-dumping review proceeding concerning imports in the Community of ferro-chrome with a carbon content by weight of maximum 0,5 % falling within CN codes 7202 49 10 and 7202 49 50 and originating in Kazakhstan and Russia is hereby terminated. F. CONCLUSION Done at Brussels, 24 March 2000. (33) Given the above findings, it was concluded that the proceeding concerning imports of LCFC originating in Russia and Kazakhstan should be terminated and that the anti-dumping duty in force should be allowed to lapse. For the Commission Pascal LAMY Member of the Commission