欧盟Eurlex法规详细信息

EN
15.3.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
67/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 248/2011
of 9 March 2011
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products originating in the People’s Republic of
China
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE
(4)
Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
considerations on the basis of which it was decided to
Union,
impose provisional measures (provisional disclosure),
several interested parties made written submissions
making known their views on the provisional findings.
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
The parties who so requested were granted the oppor
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
tunity to be heard.
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
(5) The
Commission
continued
to
seek
information
it
deemed necessary for its definitive findings. In addition
Commission (the Commission) after having consulted the
to the verifications mentioned in recital 11 of the provi
Advisory Committee,
sional Regulation, a further verification was carried out at
the premises of Saertex in Saerbeck, Germany, one of the
Whereas:
users of glass fibres which had cooperated by replying to
a users’ questionnaire.
A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES
(1) The
Commission,
by
Regulation
(EU)
No
812/2010
( 2 )
(6) All
parties
were
informed
of
the
essential
facts
and
(the provisional Regulation) imposed a provisional anti-
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to
dumping duty on imports of certain continuous filament
recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping
glass fibre products originating in the People’s Republic
duty on imports of certain continuous filament glass
of China (PRC).
fibre products originating in the PRC and the definitive
collection of the amounts secured by way of the provi
sional duty, as revised in accordance with this Regulation
(2)
The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint
(final disclosure). They were also granted a period of time
lodged on 3 November 2009 (the complaint) by the
within which they could make representations
European Glass Fibre Producers Association (APFE, now
subsequent to this disclosure.
renamed ‘GlassFibreEurope’) (the complainant) on behalf
of producers representing a major proportion, in this
case more than 50 % of the total Union production of
certain continuous filament glass fibre products.
(7) The
oral
and
written
comments
submitted
by
the
interested parties were considered and taken into
account where appropriate.
(3)
It is recalled that, as set out in recital 14 of the provi
sional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and
injury covered the period from 1 October 2008 to
30 September 2009 (‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’).
1. Scope of investigation: imports originating in
The examination of trends relevant for the assessment
Malaysia, Taiwan and Turkey
of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to
the end of the IP (the period considered).
(8) One
exporting
producer
claimed
that
imports
of
certain
continuous filament glass fibre products originating in
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
Malaysia, Taiwan and Turkey should have been
( 2 ) OJ L 243, 16.9.2010, p. 40.
included in the scope of the present investigation. It

---

L 67/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.3.2011
argued that the exclusion of these countries was discrimi
lation). In addition, after the imposition of provisional
natory as, according to the provisional findings, the
measures, a substantive amount of additional and more
volume of imports from these three countries would
detailed information was received from interested parties.
not be negligible and there would be prima facie
All these comments were analysed in detail as explained
evidence of undercutting.
below.
(9) In
this
respect,
it
should
first
be
noted
that
at
initiation (14) Several
interested
parties
claimed
that
yarns
should
be
stage, there was no prima facie evidence of dumping,
distinguished from the other three basic product types
injury and causal link, as required pursuant to
mentioned in recital 17 of the provisional Regulation
Article 5(2) of the basic Regulation, which would
because: (i) yarns would have different physical and
justify the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding on
chemical characteristics, (ii) the production process of
imports from these countries. On the contrary, as
yarns and of the other three basic product types would
concerns import volumes, the complainants submitted
be different, and (iii) yarns would be used for different
information that imports and market shares from other
purposes.
countries had decreased since 2004.
(15) As
concerns
the
arguments
(i)
and
(ii),
evidence
was
submitted that pointed to distinctive features of
(10) As
concerns
Malaysia,
Taiwan
and
Turkey,
the
analysis
at
the provisional stage confirmed that imports from both
rovings, chopped strands and mats at the one side, and
Taiwan and Turkey decreased over the period considered
yarns at the other side. More specifically, the information
(from 2,0 % to 1,5 % and from 2,9 % to 2,5 %
indicated that mats and chopped strands are typically
respectively) whereas imports from Malaysia increased
made from rovings and not from yarns. After final
slightly, from 1,0 % to 1,7 %. Although these import
disclosure, the Union industry contested this separation,
levels are above the de minimis import levels required
claiming that some speciality chopped strands would in
pursuant to Article 5(7) of the basic Regulation, other
fact be made of yarns. However, the existence of some
requirements for including these countries in the investi
specialty chopped strands made from yarns does not
gation were not satisfied. In particular, no information
imply that yarns should be considered as falling within
has been received that would point at dumping from
the definition of the product concerned (see also recital
either one of these countries. The claim for the
20 below).
inclusion of Malaysia, Taiwan and Turkey is therefore
rejected.
(16) With regard to the first claim concerning the differences
in basic chemical and physical characteristics, a study of a
leading research institute was submitted by an interested
C. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND THE LIKE PRODUCT
party. This study compared, inter alia, the physical and
chemical characteristics of rovings and yarns. After final
1. Product concerned
disclosure, some reservations were made as to the
(11) It is recalled that, as set out in recital 15 of the provi
findings of this comparison which in turn provoked
sional Regulation, the product concerned as described in
some important comments from certain users of yarns.
the Notice of initiation is chopped glass fibre strands, of
From this information it can be concluded that an
a length of not more than 50 mm; glass fibre rovings;
essential chemical component of rovings, mats and
slivers and yarns of glass fibre filaments; and mats made
chopped strands is ‘silane’, a chemical coupling agent
of glass fibre filaments excluding mats of glass wool and
facilitating the absorption of resin for matrixes. Yarns
currently falling within CN codes 7019
11
00,
are usually not made with such chemical agent but
7019 12 00, 7019 19 10 and ex 7019 31 00 (the
rather with a starch oil based chemical substance (size)
product concerned).
which is added as a lubricant and protective agent in
order for the yarn to withstand the rigours of high-
speed weaving. In contrast to the rovings, where the
coupling agent helps to absorb resin, ‘size’ repels resin.
(12) In
addition,
as
set
out
in
recital
19
of
the
provisional
As concerns the basic chemical characteristics, it was also
Regulation, it was decided to provisionally treat yarns as
established that the glass raw material for yarns has a
forming part of the product concerned although this was
more stable composition and higher uniformity of
subject to further investigation and consideration at the
particle size than the raw material for the other
definitive stage.
product types.
1.1. Yarns
(17) From the point of view of physical characteristics, yarns
appear not to share the same basic physical char
(13) Following
the
disclosure
of
provisional
measures,
the
acteristics as the other product types. Firstly, it is
claim for exclusion of yarns was further investigated. In
generally acknowledged that yarns are in general a finer
this respect it is recalled that a large number of
material with a much lower fibre diameter and linear
submissions claiming that yarns should be excluded
density than rovings. Secondly, yarns are the only
had been received prior to the imposition of provisional
product type which is twisted (though zero twist yarns
measures (see recitals 18 and 19 of the provisional Regu
also exist).

---

EN
15.3.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
67/3
(18) With regard to the second claim concerning the
this would in theory be possible as yarns could be used
differences in the production process, although all
in a limited number of applications instead of other
parties acknowledge that the four basic product types
types. However, following further analysis the
are manufactured from molten glass containing silica
Commission found that in practice this would not at
sand, soda ash, limestone, kaolin and dolomite, which
all be an economically viable option due to the
is drawn through a multi-hole heat resistant platinum-
substantial cost difference in the cost of manufacturing
rhodium trays (bushings), there are certain important
yarns compared to that of other products, which can be
differences in the production process of yarns as
explained by the differences of the production process
compared to the other products under investigation.
mentioned in recital 18 above.
Firstly, for the production of yarns, higher precision
and stable temperature control as well as energy input
are required, with more strict controlling parameters
applied (bushing output, etc.). As the holes in the
(22) In the complaint on the basis of which this investigation
was initiated, it was explicitly mentioned that the product
bushings are smaller, the production output is
concerned has one unique function and thus purpose or
substantially lower in comparison to the other
use, namely the reinforcement of plastics in composites.
products. Therefore, furnaces are usually used for
However, the above analysis established that differences
producing either yarns or rovings — indeed, for
in the production process of yarns as compared to
economic reasons glass fibres producers do not
rovings (and chopped strands and mats) resulted in
alternate in the production of these two products on
fundamental different basic physical and chemical char
the same furnace. Another difference in the production
acteristics, in view of different applications of yarns
process is that, subsequent to the bushing process, yarns
including several uses other than composite material.
go through the process of twisting.
The comments received in this respect after final
disclosure were not such as to alter this conclusion.
(19) With regard to the argument (iii) concerning the
differences in the applications, it was found that the
different chemical characteristics of yarns as compared
(23) In the light of above, the claim to exclude yarns on the
basis of different physical and chemical characteristics
to rovings, chopped strands and mats are linked to the
and different uses as compared to rovings, chopped
different uses of yarns. Although it had provisionally
strands and mats, is hereby accepted. It is thus
been concluded that ‘almost all the different types of
concluded that yarns should be excluded from the defi
the product concerned (…) are basically used for the
nition of the product concerned as defined in the provi
same purposes’, based on the comments received after
sional Regulation. Yarns are therefore definitively
provisional disclosure this issue was further investigated
excluded from the proceeding.
and it was established that, whereas rovings, chopped

strands and mats were used to reinforce plastics in
composites, yarns were primarily used in the production
of much lighter weight engineered materials for technical
(24) It
should
also
be
noted
that
a
claim
on
exclusion
of
thin
fabric applications such as high performance insulation,
yarns was submitted by an interested party, but this has
protection and filtration applications. In some cases,
no more relevance in view of the exclusion of all yarns
yarns might also be suitable for reinforcing purposes,
from the product scope.
but this would be in a very limited number of
instances only and even then, in view of the relatively
very high cost price of yarns as compared to rovings,
1.2. Texturised rovings
very often unlikely for economic reasons.
(25) One
interested
party
claimed
the
exclusion
of
texturised
rovings. This claim was based on the argumentation that
(20) In
view
of
the
above
differences,
it
is
not
surprising
that
texturised rovings should be treated according to the
the market also perceives yarns as different from the
same principle as impregnated rovings, because the
other three products. Indeed, a market report published
product is no longer a roving but a more downstream
in an independent magazine specialised in composite
product.
products was submitted by both users and the Union
industry. This report, which was in no way related to
this anti-dumping proceeding, firstly explained that, for
(26) In this respect it is important to repeat the reason for
reasons of production and uses, a distinction should be
excluding certain impregnated rovings. Indeed, certain
made between yarns and rovings. It then analysed in
rovings and yarns were excluded since these types were
detail the global glass fibre production capacity for the
specially treated by coating and impregnating and they
two groups: (i) rovings, chopped strands and mats alto
have a loss of ignition of more than 3 %, giving them
gether; and (ii) yarns ( 1 ).
different physical and chemical characteristics.
(21) As
concerns
the
potential
substitutability
of
yarns
with
(27) As
concerns
texturised
rovings,
it
is
understood
that
the other basic product types, it should be noted that, as
these are rovings that are not coated or impregnated
already stated in recital 19 of the provisional Regulation,
and which have a loss of ignition value of between
0,3 % and 0,13 %. They are therefore clearly different
( 1 ) JEC Composites Magazine, No 58 June-July 2010, p. 14.
products as compared to the impregnated rovings

---

L 67/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.3.2011
which were excluded at the provisional stage. Secondly, it
only a submission of some documents supporting the
was found that, like the other rovings, chopped strands
argument already raised and replied to concerning the
and mats, texturised rovings are primarily used for rein
composition of the company’s board of directors. Thus,
forcing plastics in composites. They are therefore clearly
no new evidence was presented that would put in
covered by the product scope definition, in the complaint
question the decision to refuse the MET claim of the
as well as in the notice initiating this proceeding, and no
exporting producer/group in question.
grounds appear to exist which would justify their
exclusion.
(34) Consequently,
the
provisional
findings
with
respect
to
the
MET claim of the exporting producer/group in question
(28) It
is therefore concluded that texturised rovings fall
are definitively confirmed.
clearly and indisputably within the product scope of
this proceeding and the claim to exclude them from
that scope has no sufficient factual basis and has to be
(35) In the absence of any other comments, the content of
rejected.
recitals 21 to 29 of the provisional Regulation
concerning MET findings is hereby definitively confirmed.
1.3. Conclusion
2. Individual treatment (IT)
(29) As
concerns
product
scope,
no
further
claims
have
been
submitted.
(36) Further
to provisional
disclosure
the same exporting
producer/group that commented on the decision
regarding its MET disagreed with the rejection of its IT
claim. It alleged that the Commission failed to provide
(30) In
view
of
the
above,
it
was
deemed
appropriate
to
revise
sufficient reasoning for the rejection of its IT claim.
the product scope definition as determined in the provi

sional Regulation. Therefore, the product concerned is
definitively defined as chopped glass fibre strands, of a
length of not more than 50 mm; glass fibre rovings,
(37) It
is
reiterated
in
this
regard
that,
as
stated
in
recital
26
of
excluding glass fibre rovings which are impregnated
the provisional Regulation, under the MET analysis part,
and coated and have a loss on ignition of more than
the majority of the directors on this company’s Board of
3 % (as determined by the ISO Standard 1887); and
Directors were appointed by a majority State owned
mats made of glass fibre filaments excluding mats of
company. Consequently significant State interference in
glass wool.
the decision-making process of this exporting producer
could not be excluded.
2. Like product
(38) Consequently, it was confirmed for this exporting
(31) In
the
absence
of
any
related
claim
or
comment
and
producer that, given that it failed to demonstrate that it
taking into account the findings set out in recitals 13
was sufficiently independent from the State, it did not
to 23 above, the conclusions in recital 20 of the provi
fulfil the criteria of Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation
sional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
and that thus its claim for the IT must be rejected.
D. DUMPING
(39) Following
final
disclosure,
the
above
exporting
producer
and the other exporting producers not granted IT argued
1. Market economy treatment (MET)
that the decision to reject their IT was not in accordance
with the WTO Panel Report in dispute DS 397
(32) Following
the
publication
of
the
provisional
measures,
concerning Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on
one exporting producer/group that was not granted
Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from the Peoples’
MET reiterated its disagreement with the rejection of its
Republic of China. In this respect, it should be noted
MET claim. However, the exporting producer/group in
that the above-mentioned Panel Report is not yet final
question merely repeated the claims made earlier in the
since it has not been adopted by the Dispute Settlement
proceeding without presenting any new arguments. It is
Body. Moreover, the time period for appeal against that
recalled that, as explained in the provisional Regulation,
Panel Report has not lapsed. This claim was therefore
those arguments were already addressed in detail in
rejected.
individual communication with the exporting
producer/group in question.
(40) Consequently and in the absence of any other comments
concerning IT, the content of recitals 30 to 33 of the
(33) In
addition, following final disclosure, the exporting
provisional Regulation is hereby definitively confirmed
producer/group in question alleged that the Commission
and it is definitely concluded that IT should not be
overlooked new evidence that it had submitted. It is
granted to any of the sampled exporting produc-
noted in this regard that the evidence referred to was
ers/groups, which were denied MET.

---

EN
15.3.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
67/5
3. Normal value
of the product types in question would be contrary to
the letter of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation. It further
3.1. Determination of the normal value for the exporting
argued that it has been a standard practice to use an
producer/group granted MET
average profit of all profitable transactions of all
product types when constructing normal value for a
(41) Following the provisional disclosure, the exporting
particular product type and that any change to that
producer/group granted MET submitted that for the
practice would infringe the principle of legal certainty.
product types which were not sold in representative
quantities on the domestic market (or not sold at all),
the normal value of the like product should be calculated
on the basis of constructed normal value and not as the
Commission did at the provisional stage — i.e. using for
normal value representative domestic prices of closely
(46) It
should
be
noted
that
the
methodology
described
in
resembling types (duly adjusted).
recital 42 is in accordance with Article 2(6) of the
basic Regulation following which the amounts for
profits should be based on actual data pertaining to
sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like
product by the exporter or producer. The use of the
(42) The
claim
was
accepted
and
consequently
the
normal
words ‘of the like product’ does not exclude the
value for the non-representative types (i.e. those of
division of the product investigated into product types
which domestic sales constituted less than 5 % of
where appropriate. Moreover, the applicable WTO case
export sales to the Union or were not sold at all in
law ( 1 ), provides that the actual profit margin established
the domestic market) was calculated on the basis of the
for the transactions in the ordinary course of trade of the
cost of manufacturing per product type plus an amount
relevant product types for which normal value has to be
for selling, general and administrative costs and for
constructed cannot be disregarded. It is also noted that
profits. In case of existing domestic sales, the profit of
the exporting producer/group has not demonstrated that
all transactions on the domestic market per product type
the transactions of the product types for which normal
for the product types concerned was used (since all
value had to be constructed should be considered as not
domestic sales transactions of these product types were
being in the ordinary course of trade. Finally, it should be
found profitable the test of Article 2(4) of the basic
noted that the methodology described above is even-
Regulation was clearly complied with). In case of no
handed. Indeed, in cases where the profit margin of the
domestic sales, an average profit was used. For one
sales in the ordinary course of trade of the product type
product type, for which no cost of manufacturing was
in question is lower than the weighted average profit of
provided, constructed normal value of a closely
all product types sales in the ordinary course of trade, it
resembling type was used.
is the lower profit margin of the product type concerned
that would be used for the construction of the normal
value. The claim is therefore rejected.
(43) For
the
remaining
product
types
it
was
subsequently
examined whether each type of the product concerned
sold domestically in representative quantities could be
3.2. Determination of normal value for exporting produc-
considered as being sold in the ordinary course of
ers/groups not granted MET
trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation
and as described in recitals 37 to 40 of the provisional
(a) A n a l o g u e c o u n t r y
Regulation.
(47) Following
the
provisional
disclosure,
one
interested
party
commented that Turkey should not be used as an
analogue country and suggested to use Malaysia in this
regard. This comment was not further substantiated and
consequently was not taken into account.
(44) The
further
investigation
established
that
the
profitable
sales of only few comparable product types were more
than 80 % of total domestic sales and, thus, all domestic
sales could be used in calculating the average price for
normal value for these product types. For the remaining
types only the profitable sales were used.
(48) It
is
noted
that
following
the
exclusion
of
yarns
from
the
product scope of the investigation (see above) the fact
that yarns are not produced in Turkey no longer creates
any obstacle for the choice of Turkey as analogue
country since there will be no need for construction of
(45) Further to the final disclosure, the exporting
a normal value of any of the investigated product types
producer/group granted MET argued that the
(see also recitals 50 and 51 below).
methodology used for constructing normal value of
non-representative product types as described in recital
( 1 ) WTO Panel Report in dispute: WT/DS337/R of 16 November 2007
42 above; i.e. using the profit of profitable transactions
(EU Salmon).

---

L 67/6
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.3.2011
(49) Given the above it is definitively concluded that Turkey
main product types: rovings, chopped strands and mats.
should be used as analogue country in this proceeding.
This necessitated revisions of some injury indicators, the
volume of dumped imports as well as the calculation of
price undercutting and the injury elimination level.
(b) D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f n o r m a l v a l u e
(50) Following
the
provisional
disclosure
one
party
argued
1. Union industry
that the normal value of the like product in Turkey
may not be accurate, as the cost structure of the
(56) With regard to the definition of the Union industry and
Turkish cooperating company is distorted. Indeed, the
the representativity of the sample of Union producers, no
investigation established that the cooperating company
new comments or claims have been received. In view of
in Turkey had significant financial costs that may be
this, and the fact that the product type excluded from the
distorting the calculation of the normal value, in
product scope, i.e. yarns, represented a limited
particular when it is constructed.
proportion of production and sales of the Union
producers, the conclusions in recitals 56 to 58 of the
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
(51) Consequently,
in
order
to
avoid
any
possible
distortion
in
the calculation, it was decided to group the product types
and to distinguish only the main product characteristics.
2. Union consumption
This grouping increased comparability in terms of sales
volumes between the product concerned and the Turkish
(57) In
respect
of
the
Union
consumption,
it
should
be
noted
like product and allowed using actual prices as opposed
that, as mentioned in recital 55 above, the exclusion of
to constructed normal value where selling, general and
one of the four main product types i.e. yarns from the
administrative costs (potentially distorted by the financial
product scope resulted in a revision of the volumes of
costs) would have to be used.
Union consumption.
4. Export price and price comparison
(58) In view of the above revision, the total Union

consumption has developed as follows during the
(52) In the absence of any comments, the content of recitals
period considered:
48 to 50 of the provisional Regulation concerning the
establishing of export price and comparing the export
Table 2
prices with the respective normal value is hereby

definitively confirmed.
Union consumption
2006 2007 2008 IP
5. Dumping margins
Units (tonnes) 903
351 944
137 937
373 697
128
(53) In the absence of any comments, the content of recitals
51 to 54 of the provisional Regulation concerning the
general methodology for calculating dumping margins is
Indexed 100 105 104 77
hereby definitively confirmed.
(59) The
above
consumption
trend
is
similar
to
the
trend
(54) In
the
light
of
the
above
mentioned
changes
in
the
observed for the product under investigation as defined
calculation of the normal values, and after correction
in the provisional Regulation, i.e. an increase by ca. 5 %
of some calculation errors, the amount of dumping
in 2007-2008 and then a very significant drop, by 23 %
finally determined, expressed as a percentage of the CIF
in the IP as compared to 2006.
net free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, is as follows:
3. Imports from the country concerned
Table 1
(60) In view of the exclusion of yarns from the product scope,
Dumping margins
the import data had to be revised.
Changzhou New Changhai Fiberglass Co., Ltd
9,6 %
and Jiangsu Changhai Composite Materials
(61) One
interested
party
argued
that
the
imports
from
the
Holding Co., Ltd, Tangqiao, Yaoguan Town,
PRC coming from producers related to the Union
Changzhou City, Jiangsu
industry should have been excluded from the imports
concerned.
Other cooperating companies 29,7
%
(62) In
this
regard
it
is
first
recalled
that,
as
already
mentioned
E. INJURY
in recital 58 of the provisional Regulation, during the IP
the volume of imports from the PRC of the sampled
(55) It
should
be
noted
that,
following
the
exclusion
of
yarns
producers only represented less than 4 % of total
from the product scope (see recitals 13 to 23 above), the
Chinese imports. This remains unchanged following the
injury analysis had to be adapted to the remaining three
exclusion of yarns from the product scope.

---

EN
15.3.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
67/7
(63) Given that only two Union producers have imported the
(67) However, the above table shows that the trend of
product concerned from the PRC during the IP, the exact
substantially stable prices during the period considered
volume of these imports cannot be disclosed for reasons
has not altered, and therefore, the conclusion regarding
of confidentiality. In any event, even if the amount of
the price trend of these imports, as established in the
these imports were deducted for each year of the period
provisional Regulation, can be confirmed.
considered, the trend of import volumes and market
shares would remain substantially unchanged. The
market share of dumped imports would be lower,
though only by less than one percentage point in each
(d) P r i c e u n d e r c u t t i n g
year of the period considered, thereby not affecting the
(68) As
regards
the
calculation
of
price
undercutting,
the
overall trend during the period considered.
provisional margins had to be revised since the
(64) Following the exclusion of yarns, the revised import data
exclusion of yarns from the product scope necessitated
are as follows:
the elimination of the corresponding sales from the
injury calculations.
(a) V o l u m e s
Table 3
(69) Moreover,
as
was
done
on
the
dumping
side
of
the
Imports from the PRC (volumes)
investigation (see recitals 50 and 51 above) it was
decided to group the product types and to only
2006 2007 2008 IP
distinguish the main product characteristics. This
resulted in an increase of the volume of Chinese
Units (tonnes) 71
061 110
641 132
023 98
723
imports included in the comparison with the sales of
Indexed 100 156 186 139
the like product produced by the Union industry,
thereby ensuring a better representativeness of the under
cutting calculations.
(b) M a r k e t s h a r e
Table 4
(70) Finally,
an
adjustment
for
post-importation
costs
was
Imports from the PRC (market share)
applied, given that these costs are indispensable for the
selling of the product concerned.
2006 2007 2008 IP
Market
7,9 % 11,7
% 14,1
% 14,2
%
share (%)
(71) Following
the
changes
in
the
calculation
of
price
under
cutting due to (i) the exclusion of yarns, (ii) the grouping
Indexed 100 149 179 180
of product types, and (iii) adjustment for post-
importation costs, the revised undercutting margins
(65) After these changes, the trends observed at the provi
amount to up to 18,2 %, while the average price under
sional stage concerning import volumes of the product
cutting is 10,9 %. The above changes have been applied
concerned have changed to a limited extent. However,
also to the calculation of the injury elimination level —
the increase in volume of imports both in absolute and
see recital 134 of this Regulation.
relative terms remains substantial. Such imports increased
very rapidly during the period considered, notably
between 2006 and 2008 (by 86 %), after which there
(72) Apart
from
the
changes
mentioned
above
and
in
the
was a drop in Chinese imports due to the overall
absence of any other claim or comments, the conclusions
decline in demand. However, the market share of these
in recitals 61 to 65 of the provisional Regulation are
imports continued to increase between 2008 and the IP
hereby confirmed.
and it increased over the whole period by 6,3 percentage
points.
(c) P r i c e e v o l u t i o n
4. Economic situation of the Union industry
(66) After
exclusion
of
yarns,
the
average
CIF
import
price
of
4.1. Revision of injury indicators due to the exclusion of yarns
the product concerned has decreased significantly (by ca.
3 %):
(73) The exclusion of yarns from the product scope
necessitated the adjustment of certain tables in Section
Table 5
D.4 of the provisional Regulation. In addition, a minor
correction to the sales data of one of the sampled
Imports from the PRC (prices)
producers had to be made. It should be noted that
there was only a relatively limited presence of yarns in
2006 2007 2008 IP
the production and sales of the sampled producers.
Average
901 907 945 909
Therefore, most affected by these adjustments were the
price/tonne
indicators on the basis of all Union producers (sales
(EUR)
volumes and market share). To a more limited extent,
Indexed 100 101 105 101
average sales prices of the sampled producers were also
affected. However, the trends observed, also for these

---

L 67/8
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.3.2011
indicators, remain substantially unchanged as compared
of yarns from the product scope, the conclusion in recital
to the findings in the provisional Regulation, as the
70 of the provisional Regulation is herewith confirmed.
below tables demonstrate. In view of the limited
presence of yarns within the producers’ sample, the
financial indicators (profitability, return on investment
(ROI), cash flow and investments) have not been
Table 8
affected by the exclusion of yarns from the product
scope. For the sake of transparency, all tables concerning
Union industry — stocks
the injury indicators listed in Section D.4 of the provi
sional Regulation are shown below, including those
Sampled
unchanged.
producers
2006 2007 2008 IP
Units (tonnes) 87
603 72
282 122
926 81
485
Indexed 100 83 140 93
(74) As the development in production volumes of the
sampled producers, as compared to the figures
provided in the provisional Regulation, was only
(77) Although,
as
compared
to
the
sales
volumes
reported
in
affected to a very limited extent (a 1 % increase for
the provisional Regulation, the decrease since 2006 in
2008 and the IP) by the exclusion of yarns from the
sales volumes is 1 % stronger in 2007 and 2008 and
product scope, the conclusion in recital 67 of the provi
3 % less pronounced in the IP, sales volumes declined
sional Regulation is herewith confirmed.
still by 27 % during the period considered and the
conclusions in recitals 71-72 are, therefore, herewith
confirmed.
Table 6
Table 9
Union industry — production
Sampled
Union industry — EU sales (volumes)
producers
2006 2007 2008 IP
All EU producers 2006 2007 2008 IP
Units (tonnes) 488
335 503
711 498
739 310
257
Units (tonnes) 689
541 683
861 654
956 501
519
Indexed 100 103 102 64
Indexed 100 99 95 73
(75) The
Union
industry
production
capacity
figures
have
overall been decreased by the exclusion of yarns, but
(78) After
the
exclusion
of
yarns
from
the
product
scope,
EU
that has had no effect on the trend and the capacity
market share of the Union industry has decreased from
utilisation. Therefore, the conclusion in recital 69 of
76,3 % to 71,9 % (as opposed to from 75,1 % to
the provisional Regulation is herewith confirmed.
69,5 %). The conclusions in recital 73 of the provisional
Regulation regarding the market share of the Union
industry are therefore confirmed.
Table 7
Table 10
Union industry — production capacity
Sampled
Union industry — EU market share
producers
2006 2007 2008 IP
All EU producers 2006 2007 2008 IP
Capacity
567 067 567
822 580
705 506
509
(tonnes)
EU market
76,3 % 72,4
% 69,9
% 71,9
%
share (%)
Indexed 100 100 102 89
Capacity utili
86 % 89
% 86
% 61
%
Indexed 100 95 92 94
sation (%)
Indexed 100 103 100 71
(79) As
concerns
average
sales
prices,
the
exclusion
of
yarns
from the product scope resulted in overall slightly lower
average sales prices. The trend is however identical to the
(76) As the development of stocks of the sampled producers,
sales price trend reported in the provisional Regulation
as compared to the figures provided in the provisional
(only 1 % higher figures for 2008 and the IP) and the
Regulation, was only affected to a very limited extent (a
conclusions in recital 74 of that Regulation are, therefore,
1 % increase for 2007, 2008 and the IP) by the exclusion
herewith confirmed.

---

EN
15.3.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
67/9
Table 11
(82) As already mentioned in recital 73 above, in view of the
limited presence of yarns within the producers sample,
Union industry — EU sales (average prices)
the financial indicators listed below have not been
affected by the exclusion of yarns from the product
Sampled
scope.
producers
2006 2007 2008 IP
EUR/tonne 1
163 1
154 1
181 1
147
(83) Labour
costs
in
the
sense
of
yearly
average
wages
are
Indexed 100 99 102 99
unaffected by the exclusion of yarns from the product
scope and the conclusions in recital 77 of the provisional
Regulation are therefore herewith confirmed.
(80) The
employment
figures
of
the
Union
producers
have
been adjusted to exclude the production of yarns. The
relatively small reduction in numbers has left the trend
Table 14
unchanged (only 1 % higher figures for 2008 and the IP),
therefore, the conclusions in recital 75 of the provisional
Union industry — labour costs
Regulation are herewith confirmed.
Sampled
producers
2006 2007 2008 IP
Table 12
Yearly wages 42 649 43
257 43
991 41
394
(EUR)
Union industry — employment
Sampled
Indexed 100 101 103 97
producers
2006 2007 2008 IP
Number of
4 050 3
851 3
676 3
275
(84) Profitability
and
ROI
are
unaffected
by
the
exclusion
of
employees
yarns from the product scope and the conclusions in
recitals 78-81 of the provisional Regulation are
Indexed 100 95 91 81
therefore herewith confirmed.
(81) The
productivity
of
the
Union
industry
has
not
been
Table 15
affected by the exclusion of yarns and the conclusions
in recital 76 of the provisional Regulation can therefore
be confirmed.
Union industry — profitability & ROI

Sampled
producers
2006 2007 2008 IP
Table 13
Net profit (as %
0,3 % 4,7
% 3,5
% –
15,0
%
Union industry — productivity
of turnover)
Sampled
ROI 2,5
% 6,2
% 3,0
% –
16,8
%
producers
2006 2007 2008 IP
Tonnes/em-
121 131 136 95
ployee
(85) The
cash
flow
situation
of
the
Union
industry
is
unaf
fected by the exclusion of yarns from the product scope
Indexed 100 108 113 79
and the conclusion in recital 83 of the provisional Regu
lation is therefore herewith confirmed.
Table 16
Union industry — cash flow
Sampled producers 2006 2007 2008 IP
Cash flow (EUR) 34
261
986 17
230
139 7
452
912 –
22
001
723
Indexed 100 50 22 –
64
(86) The level of investments of the Union industry is unaffected by the exclusion of yarns from the
product scope and the conclusions in recital 85 of the provisional Regulation are therefore herewith
confirmed.

---

L 67/10
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.3.2011
Table 17
Union industry — investments
Sampled producers 2006 2007 2008 IP
Net investments (EUR) 40
089
991 20
804
311 43
613
463 28
387
044
Indexed 100 52 109 71
4.2. Comments received following disclosure of provisional
and in turn both the sales volume and the Union
findings
consumption were necessary for determining the
market share of the Union industry.
(87) One interested party claimed that the Commission
should have analysed injury (and also causation) on a
segment-specific basis, i.e. for each of the main product
(91) Another
interested
party
argued
that
the
imports
from
types separately. This party considered that the main
the PRC from producers related to the sampled Union
product types were too different from each other to be
producers, as mentioned in recital 58 of the provisional
analysed as a whole.
Regulation, should have been added to the sales of the
producers concerned.
(88) It
should
first
of
all
be
recalled
that
any
conclusions
concerning dumping and injury can only be drawn for
(92) Given
that
the
products
in
question
are
only
re-sold
by
the product concerned and the like product as a whole. If
the Union producers concerned, the addition of these
claims exist about the definition of the product
imports to their sales volume would distort the picture
concerned, these should be analysed in that context
does not therefore appear justified. In any case, as already
and should not result in separate injury analysis
stated in recitals 62 and 63 above, the volume of these
depending on the various product types covered by the
imports is limited. As mentioned in the same recitals
investigation. As mentioned in recitals 13 to 23 above,
above, also the market shares would be affected only
the product scope of this investigation has been amended
to a minimal extent without altering the trends of the
at the definitive stage of the investigation by the
relating injury indicators.
exclusion of yarns. Any conclusion on dumping and
injury can only be made on this newly defined product
concerned and like product as a whole. For these reasons
(93) One
interested
party
mentioned
that
the
Commission
had not explained why the sales for captive use had
the above claim cannot be accepted.
been included in the sales figures of the Union
industry. It claimed that the Commission should have
analysed the captive market independently from the
(89) The
same
interested
party
argued
that
the
data
presented
free market.
for the Union industry was not coherent. In particular, it
considered that the Commission was wrong in
sometimes providing data from the entire Union
(94) In this respect it is important to underline that sales for
industry whereas on other occasions use had been
captive use were included in the Union industry’s sales
made from the verified data from the sampled
volumes and market share analysis as it was found that
producers only.
these sales did compete with imports. Indeed, the inves
tigation had established that the quantities used for
captive use, by the companies concerned in the Union,
could in principle be substituted by purchased glass
(90) In
respect
of
this
claim
it
should
firstly
be
noted
that
fibres, e.g. if market circumstances and/or financial
sampling is a procedure expressly provided for under
considerations would trigger such a change. They have
Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to deal with cases
therefore been included in the Union market analysis. In
where it is not possible to investigate certain groups of
any case, should captive sales be excluded from the
economic operators in detail. The selected sample of
analysis, the trends in sales would show no substantive
Union producers has been considered as representative
changes.
for the whole Union industry and no substantiated
claims stating the contrary have been submitted by
interested parties. Therefore, as already mentioned in
(95) The Union industry questioned the average Union sales
recital 66 of the provisional Regulation, all the injury
prices of the Union industry as summarised in table 10
indicators, except those concerning sales volume and
of the provisional Regulation. It suspected a calculation
market share, were established on the basis of
error and claimed that, in reality, the drop in sales prices
information collected from and verified at the premises
over the period considered was more significant than the
of the sampled Union producers. The sales volume of the
reported 2 %. In view of this allegation, the calculation of
Union industry comprising all Union producers was a
the average Union sales prices of the sampled Union
prerequisite for the calculation of Union consumption,
producers was reviewed. The calculation was based

---

EN
15.3.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
67/11
on verified sales prices and was found to be accurate.
imports had remained substantially stable throughout the
However, in view of the exclusion of yarns from the
period considered and that the Union industry had
product scope, the average sales prices had to be recal
managed to maintain profitability at levels close to the
culated by excluding yarns and the revised average sales
mentioned target profit during the years 2007 and 2008
prices are reported in table 11 above.
when the most significant increase in Chinese import
volumes occurred.
(96) Two
of
the
sampled
producers
questioned
some
of
the
adjustments made on their submitted profitability figures.
(100) A reply to these claims was already contained in recitals
The contested adjustments referred to intra-company
94 and 95 of the provisional Regulation, which are
transfers, changes in accounting and certain extraordinary
hereby confirmed. Moreover, as already indicated in
elements which were considered by the Commission to
recital 107 of the provisional Regulation, it cannot be
unnecessarily distort the resulting profit figures. The
concluded that the causal link is broken simply on the
adjustments were contested as the producers concerned
basis of the development of a limited number of injury
considered that important costs were consequently not
indicators looked at for a limited part of the period
shown, although they had been incurred and in some
considered; on the contrary, the overall development of
cases could even be linked to the dumped imports. The
all injury indicators over the whole period considered
adjustments which had been made on the profitability
should be assessed. The provisional analysis had already
figures of the two companies were reviewed and they
shown that imports of the product concerned have
were found again to be justified. This claim, therefore,
caused price depression on the Union market throughout
had to be dismissed.
the period considered and largely undercut the Union
industry sales prices in the IP. The Union industry has,
therefore, not been in a position to reach the necessary
(97) In
the
absence
of
any
other
claim
or
comments,
and
with
levels of profitability, even in periods of relatively strong
the modifications indicated in recitals 55 to 80 above,
demand, as in the years 2007 and 2008. The imports
the conclusions in recitals 66 to 86 of the provisional
from the PRC have, in addition, consistently gained
Regulation are hereby confirmed.
market share and mostly in 2007, when the EU glass
fibres market grew significantly. This aggressive strategy
5. Conclusion on injury
of gaining market shares by consistently selling at prices
undercutting the Union industry prices had not resulted
(98) In
the
absence
of
any
other
claim
or
comments,
the
in a serious deterioration of the Union industry profit
conclusions in recitals 87 to 89 in the provisional Regu
ability before the IP only because of the relatively high
lation are hereby confirmed.
levels of Union consumption which mitigated the effect
of the injurious dumping. However, the developments
during the IP confirm that as soon as the market
F. CAUSATION
conditions deteriorated the material injury caused by
1. Effect of the dumped imports
the dumped imports displayed all its effects. The claims

mentioned in recital 99 above are therefore dismissed.
(99) Some
parties
reiterated
the
claim
that,
in
view
of
the
volume and prices of imports from the PRC, there was
2. Effects of other factors
no causal link between the injury suffered by the Union
industry and the imports concerned. In particular, it was
(101) In view of the exclusion of yarns from the product scope,
claimed again that the average import price of these
the import data had to be revised as follows:
Table 18
Imports from other countries
Country 2006 2007 2008 IP
Norway Volumes
(tonnes) 34
945 28
834 35
396 24
980
Market share (%) 3,9
% 3,0
% 3,8
% 3,6
%
Av. price/tonne (EUR) 1
255 1
412 1
359 1
256
Turkey Volumes
(tonnes) 28
946 24
928 20
511 18
523
Market share (%) 3,2
% 2,6
% 2,2
% 2,6
%
Av. price/tonne (EUR) 1
088 1
151 1
202 1
074
USA Volumes
(tonnes) 16
757 15
821 12
145 8
726
Market share (%) 1,8
% 1,7
% 1,3
% 1,2
%

---

L 67/12
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.3.2011
Imports from other countries
Country 2006 2007 2008 IP
Av. price/tonne (EUR) 1
521 1
421 2
056 2
012
Malaysia Volumes
(tonnes) 9
541 25
569 35
118 12
601
Market share (%) 1,1
% 2,7
% 3,7
% 1,8
%
Av. price/tonne (EUR) 979 1
019 1
021 1
025
Taiwan Volumes
(tonnes) 9
043 9
919 8
791 6
996
Market share (%) 1,0
% 1,0
% 0,9
% 1,0
%
Av. price/tonne (EUR) 928 925 928 854
India Volumes
(tonnes) 4
363 11
227 3
741 5
353
Market share (%) 0,5
% 1,2
% 0,4
% 0,8
%
Av. price/tonne (EUR) 1
304 1
228 1
292 1
230
Rep. of Korea Volumes
(tonnes) 6
277 4
845 13
918 5
112
Market share (%) 0,7
% 0,5
% 1,5
% 0,7
%
Av. price/tonne (EUR) 1
037 1
109 886 999
Japan Volumes
(tonnes) 21
142 9
498 9
949 3
710
Market share (%) 2,3
% 1,0
% 1,1
% 0,5
%
Av. price/tonne (EUR) 1
125 1
164 1
336 1
580
Mexico Volumes
(tonnes) 1
017 2
977 1
803 1
763
Market share (%) 0,1
% 0,3
% 0,2
% 0,3
%
Av. price/tonne (EUR) 364 729 977 1
033
Canada Volumes
(tonnes) 3
930 3
096 2
123 2
029
Market share (%) 0,4
% 0,3
% 0,2
% 0,3
%
Av. price/tonne (EUR) 1
047 1
664 1
711 1
919
Other countries Volumes
(tonnes) 6
787 12
923 6
899 7
092
Market share (%) 0,7
% 1,4
% 0,7
% 1,0
%
Av. price/tonne (EUR) 1
521 1
402 1
635 1
586
(102) Apart from the import volumes from the USA and
deteriorated when the demand collapsed. At the same
Taiwan, which went down by ca. 35
% (IP) as
time, it was argued, there would be no correlation
compared to the volumes reported in table 17 of the
between EU market share, sales prices and profitability
provisional Regulation, imports from other countries
of the Union industry, on the one hand and the EU
appear to be influenced only to a very moderate extent
market share and sales prices of Chinese imports on
by the exclusion of yarns.
the other. It was also claimed that the Commission
would not have properly assessed the injurious effects
(103) Several interested parties reiterated the claim that the
of the downturn in EU consumption and consequently
economic crisis rather than the dumped imports had
acted in violation with Article 3(7) of the basic Regu
caused the injury to the Union industry — or, alter
lation.
natively, that the economic crisis was the main cause
of injury while imports from the PRC were at most
only a second, additional factor. In this respect it was
(104) The first part of the above claim has extensively been
argued that there was a correlation between consumption
dealt with in recitals 99-102 of the provisional Regu
and profitability and that the profitability only
lation. Indeed, the impact of the economic crisis in the

---

EN
15.3.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
67/13
injury has been examined and it is recognised in recital
(111) Many users reiterated general comments on some of the
101 of the provisional Regulation that the economic
issues which were already analysed in the provisional
downturn and the contraction in demand had a
Regulation, without providing new information in this
negative effect on the state of the Union industry and
respect or additional evidence substantiating such
that, as such, it has contributed to the injury suffered by
claims. On some other issues, however, new information
the Union industry. However, this does not diminish the
was obtained and, subsequently, analysed.
damaging injurious effect of the low priced and dumped
Chinese imports on the Union market throughout the
period considered. In other words, the economic crisis
(112) Several interested parties argued that the cooperation
during the IP aggravated the injury to the Union industry
obtained from the users was not representative of the
but imports from the PRC have by all means caused the
complexity of the sector and that most users were
injury which is considered to be material in the sense of
small to medium sized companies whose situation and
Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation. This claim was
views have been neglected in the Union interest analysis.
therefore rejected.
3. Conclusion on causation
(113) In this respect it is firstly to be recalled that 13 users

submitted a questionnaire reply and several other users
(105) None of the arguments submitted by the interested
submitted, in addition, comments. Moreover, several
parties demonstrates that the impact of factors other
associations acting on behalf of users submitted
than dumped imports from the PRC is such as to
comments. Many of these interested parties also made
break the causal link between the dumped imports and
their views known in a hearing. After adjusting the
the injury found. In the light of the foregoing and in the
count in view of the exclusion of yarns from the
absence of any other comments which had not yet been
product scope, the cooperating users accounted for ca.
addressed, it is concluded that the dumped imports from
24 % of the imports of the product concerned. Such
the PRC caused material injury to the Union industry
cooperation is considered representative.
within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regu
lation.
(114) Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that most users that
completed a users’ questionnaire were rather large
(106) The conclusions on causation in the provisional Regu
companies. The Commission is in this respect
lation, as summarised in the recitals 117-119 thereof, are
dependant on the cooperation eventually obtained. It is
hereby confirmed.
however considered that, through the cooperation
obtained from several associations (PlasticsEurope,
EuCIA, EuPC, Plastindustrien, BPF), the concerns of the
G. UNION INTEREST
small and medium sized companies were indeed voiced
and they have been taken into account.
(107) In view of parties’ comments the Commission conducted
further analysis of all arguments pertaining to the Union
interest.
(115) A number of users and an association contested the
assessment of the Commission concerning the number
of people employed in the glass fibres users industry
1. Interest of the Union industry
made in recital 130 of the provisional Regulation. In
this respect it should be recalled that in recital 130 of
(108) The complainants reiterated that the imposition of anti-
the provisional Regulation the Commission estimated the
dumping measures was essential for the Union industry
total number of people working in all the downstream
to continue to be viable and operate in the future, as the
Union industry of companies using glass fibre products,
price erosion caused by dumped imports from the PRC
including the manufacturing of further downstream
had severely affected the sales, profitability and ability to
products, at ca. 50 000 to 75 000. The above interested
invest of the Union industry. In the absence of any
parties claimed that this number could reach a total of
further specific comment on this point, recitals 122 to
200 000 to 250 000 people and they were requested to
126 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
substantiate these estimations. Although one association,
the European Boating Industry, did provide some back
up figures concerning the boatbuilding industry, no
2. Interest of unrelated importers in the Union
conclusive evidence was submitted that would link
(109) In the absence of any specific comment on this point,
these employment figures with the product concerned
recitals 127 and 128 of the provisional Regulation are
and the like product.
hereby confirmed.
(116) In any event, establishing the interest of glass fibres users
3. Interest of the users
on such general data, which comprise the totality of
people employed in all downstream levels of the Union
(110) After the imposition of provisional measures, a number
industry including divisions of multinational companies
of users and user associations that had not come forward
having no relation whatsoever with glass fibre products,
at the provisional stage made themselves known and
would seriously affect the credibility of the Union interest
provided comments.
analysis.

---

L 67/14
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.3.2011
(117) It should also be recalled that, as mentioned in recital
revised by eliminating from the analysis the companies
130 of the provisional Regulation, the Commission also
using yarns. In addition, the assessment necessitated
estimated the number of employees of glass fibres using
further modifications in view of the duty levels to be
divisions of those companies that used Chinese glass
applied (see recital 139 below).
fibres during the IP, at ca. 27 000 people. This
estimate was based on detailed data as submitted by
the users’ in their questionnaire replies specifically on
the Union employment of those divisions. The estimation
was made by aggregating these figures and then ex-
(123) In view of the above revisions, the calculated impact of
trapolating them to all Chinese imports of the product
the duty for the user industry will be on average only
concerned during the IP. The extrapolation was based on
around 0,5 and up to 2,3 percentage points on the profit
the cooperating users’ share in the total Chinese imports
of glass fibre using divisions of users. The impact will
of the product concerned during the IP.
thus be much smaller than anticipated at the provisional
stage, if significant at all, as it is unlikely that a small cost
price increase as the one possibly caused by the preset
duty rates cannot be passed on completely or at least in
(118) Finally in this respect it should also be noted that,
part.
following the exclusion of yarns from the product
scope, the above estimation had to be revised. The
revision resulted in an estimated employment of ca.
22 000 people.
(124) Indeed, as concerns the ability to pass on cost price
increases, information has been obtained from the
complainant on the development of the cost price of
3.1. Impact of duty cost on profitability of users
resins, another key cost for users and sometimes even
representing a majority part of the cost price of
(119) Several users claimed that the Commission, in recitals
composite end products. According to this submission,
132-136 of the provisional Regulation, had under
whereas the glass fibres sales price (cost price for users)
estimated the impact of the provisional anti-dumping
would have remained stable for very long, the cost price
duty on the profitability and, hence, viability of the
of resins would have doubled in the same period. The
European user industry. They claimed that the actual
price increase of resins would again be pronounced since
impact was much higher and that the provisional duty
the end of 2009. In spite of these very significant price
level put the existence of many of these businesses in the
increases, users have continued to buy this key raw
Union in peril.
material and to sell their end-products, remaining
competitive. It is therefore likely that they have
managed to pass on at least a part of the cost price
increase to their customers. If such a very significant
(120) In this respect it is important to note that the economic
cost price increase can (partly) be passed on to
assessment made in the provisional Regulation was based
customers, there is no reason why that could not be
on the economic data submitted by the users cooperating
the case with an anti-dumping duty on glass fibres at
in the investigation. This was in fact the only verifiable
the level of the injury elimination level.
information available in this respect. Though this
assessment was criticised by a large number of users,
only one of them submitted additional information that
could be used in order to render the analysis more
precise. In any event, the party in question is a user of
(125) Some parties claimed that certain users including global
yarns, therefore its submission was eventually not
groups are and/or will be moving production outside the
considered in the cost impact analysis.
Union which can create job losses at the Union users;
besides, there can be an impact also on the customers of
users, as well as on the plastics manufacturers that also
supply material to glass fibre users producing composite
(121) Additional claims were made alleging that the impact on
material. However, this is a potential consequence of the
small and medium-sized users is larger than that estab
imposition of duties on any intermediate product and
lished. However, little concrete evidence has been
not just on glass fibres. Downstream users may as well
provided in this respect in the absence of full coop
apply for protection in the framework of anti-dumping
eration of such users. Indeed, the cooperating users
proceedings as it has already occurred for glass fibre
include some multinational companies on which the
mesh fabrics. In any event, any such effects as claimed
effect of duties is likely to be more limited. However,
would now appear very limited due to the duty levels to
in order to exclude this distorting impact in the calcu
be applied (see recital 139 below).
lation, at definitive stage the Commission established the
average cost impact only for the glass- fibre- using
division of the cooperating users, instead of the whole
companies — see recital 123 below.
(126) In view of the above, it can be concluded that none of
the users which cooperated in the investigation and
submitted economic data which could be examined by
(122) Following the exclusion of yarns from the product scope,
the Commission would risk survival, as a consequence of
the assessment made at the provisional stage had to be
the cost increase caused by the proposed measures.

---

EN
15.3.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
67/15
3.2. Security of supply
in the prices made by Union producers. As concerns the
short-term contracts, this is an issue between buyer and
(127) Several users reiterated the claim that the security of
seller which is not necessarily linked to a temporary
supply on the Union market was in peril and that the
shortage of supply but may be explained by many
anti-dumping measures further aggravated this situation.
other factors affecting the market. In any event, as
They substantiated their claim with some evidence,
already mentioned in recital 128 above, the situation
pointing to an inability of the Union industry to secure
with regard to glass fibres supply appears to have
supply of glass fibres to the user industry at the requested
normalised in the course of the year 2010. For these
volumes and prices. In the same vein, the Commission’s
reasons, the above claims are dismissed.
mentioning that the idle capacity in the EU was
significant enough to replace the imports from the PRC
was considered simplified and unjustified.
4. Conclusion on Union interest
(132) On the basis of the above, the conclusions in recitals
(128) The issue was further analysed. New information on
150-151 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
production volumes, capacity utilisation and demand
confirmed and it is definitively concluded that, on
was also obtained from the complainant. The
balance, no compelling reasons exist against the
information thus obtained and analysed confirmed that
imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on imports
there had indeed been a bottleneck of supply of certain
of the product concerned originating in the PRC.
products manufactured by the Union industry in the first
half of 2010, due to the stock shortages following the
recovery of the market after the economic crisis. In the
meantime, however, and in line with the expectation in
this respect mirrored in the provisional Regulation
H. DEFINITIVE MEASURES
(recitals 145-149), the increase in demand appears to
have stabilised and evidence was provided that the EU
1. Injury elimination level
suppliers had significantly increased their immediately
available production during 2010. Further increases in
(133) The complainant argued that the 5 % target profit, as
established at the provisional stage, was excessively low
Union industry production capacity were also
and it reiterated the view that a level between 12 % and
announced for the short and middle-long term. In
15 % would be more justified, in view of the fact that the
addition, proof of a significant increase in production
capacity in several other producing countries outside
glass fibres industry is highly capital intensive. It argued
the Union was also submitted.
that such a much higher profitability level would be

necessary to generate a healthy return on capital and
allow for new investments. However, the above claim
was not convincingly substantiated and it is therefore
concluded that the 5 % profit margin established at the
(129) The updated production and production capacity data for
provisional stage should be maintained.
yarns were less reassuring and an independent market
study also pointed at a clearly less favourable supply
situation as concerns yarns. However, as yarns were
excluded from the product scope, this issue is of no
further relevance.
(134) As regards the determination of the injury elimination
level, as already stated in recital 71 above, the changes
in methodology that affected the calculation of price
undercutting — that is, (i) the exclusion of yarns,(ii)
(130) Several users also claimed that some Union producers
the grouping of product types, and (iii) the adjustment
had increased considerably the prices of certain
for post-importation costs — were also applied in the
products immediately before the publication of the provi
calculation of the injury elimination level.
sional Regulation and had started a practice of requesting
an increase in prices when additional quantities were
requested by users. It was also claimed that some
Union producers were only willing to subscribe to
(135) In order to exclude yarns and to take into account the
short-term contracts (less than 1 year) contrary to the
specificities of each product group (rovings, chopped
previous practice. Some evidence was provided of this,
strands and mats) in the injury analysis, the Commission
which was seen by users as an indication of the fact that
made use of the detailed financial information submitted
the Union industry would not be in a position to supply
separately by product type by the sampled Union
the quantities requested by the market at reasonable
producers. In this respect, the separate financial data of
prices.
the main product groups (rovings, chopped strands and
mats) were used instead of the overall data which have
been used in the provisional calculations and which
included yarns (see recital 155 of the provisional Regu
(131) In this respect, it should be noted that, following the
lation). The resulting calculation better reflects the
imposition of anti-dumping measures, some increase in
situation on the market and takes into account the
prices in the Union market can be expected. It is
revised product scope as well as the specificities of the
therefore not unusual to also observe a certain increase
main product types to the extent possible.

---

L 67/16
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.3.2011
(136) The above changes resulted in a considerable revision of
(142) In order to ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-
the provisional injury elimination levels.
dumping duty, the country-wide duty level should not
only apply to the non-cooperating exporting producers
but also to those producers which did not have any
2. Definitive measures
exports to the Union during the IP.
(137) In the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in
accordance with Article 9 of the basic Regulation,
definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of the
3. Definitive collection of provisional duties
product concerned should be imposed.
(143) In view of the magnitude of the dumping margin found
and given the level of the injury caused to the Union
(138) As the injury elimination levels are now lower than the
industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts
dumping margins established, the definitive measures
secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty
should be based on the injury elimination level.
imposed by the provisional Regulation should be
definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the
definitive duties imposed. As yarns are now excluded
(139) On the basis of the above, the duty rate, expressed as a
from the product scope (see recitals 13 to 24), the
percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, customs duty
amounts provisionally secured on imports of yarns
unpaid, is as follows:
should be released. As the definitive duty rates are
lower than the provisional duty rates, amounts provi
sionally secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-
Proposed
dumping duty should be released,
Exporting producer
anti-dumping duty
(%)
Changzhou New Changhai Fiberglass Co.,
7,3
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Ltd and Jiangsu Changhai Composite
Materials Holding Co., Ltd, Tangqiao,
Yaoguan Town, Changzhou City, Jiangsu
Article 1
All other companies 13,8
1. A
definitive
anti-dumping
duty
is
hereby
imposed
on
imports of chopped glass fibre strands, of a length of not
more than 50 mm; glass fibre rovings, excluding glass fibre
rovings which are impregnated and coated and have a loss on
(140) The individual company anti-dumping duty rate specified
ignition of more than 3 % (as determined by the ISO Standard
in this Regulation was established on the basis of the
1887); and mats made of glass fibre filaments excluding mats of
findings of the present investigation. Therefore, it
glass wool currently falling within CN codes 7019 11 00,
reflects the situation found during that investigation
ex 7019 12 00
and
ex 7019 31 00
(TARIC
codes
with respect to the company concerned. This duty rate
7019 12 00 21,
7019 12 00 22,
7019 12 00 23,
(as opposed to the country-wide duty applicable to ‘all
7019 12 00 24,
7019 12 00 39,
7019 31 00 29
and
other companies’) is thus exclusively applicable to
7019 31 00 99) and originating in the People’s Republic of
imports of products originating in the country
China.
concerned and produced by the company mentioned.
Imported products produced by any other company
not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this
Regulation with its name and address, including entities
2. The
rate
of
the
definitive
anti-dumping
duty
applicable
to
related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit
the net, free-at-Union-frontier price before duty, of the product
from this rate and shall be subject to the duty rate
described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies
applicable to ‘all other companies’.
listed below shall be as follows:
(141) Any claim requesting the application of this individual
company anti-dumping duty rate (e.g. following a change
Company
Anti-dumping
TARIC
in the name of the entity or following the setting up of
duty (%)
additional code
new production or sales entities) should be addressed to
the Commission
(
Changzhou New Changhai Fiberglass
7,3 A983

1 ) forthwith with all relevant
information, in particular any modification in the
Co., Ltd and Jiangsu Changhai
company’s activities linked to production, domestic and
Composite Materials Holding Co., Ltd,
Tangqiao, Yaoguan Town, Changzhou
export sales associated with, for example, that name
City, Jiangsu
change or that change in the production and sales
entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will then be
accordingly amended by updating the reference to the
All other companies 13,8 A999
company benefiting from an individual duty rate.
( 1 ) European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate H,
3. Unless
otherwise
specified,
the
provisions
in
force
Office N105 04/092, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGI.
concerning customs duties shall apply.

---

EN
15.3.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
67/17
Article 2
50 mm; glass fibre rovings, excluding glass fibre rovings which
are impregnated and coated and have a loss on ignition of more
1. The
amounts
secured
by
way
of
provisional
anti-dumping than 3 % (as determined by the ISO Standard 1887); and mats
duties pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 812/2010 on imports of
made of glass fibre filaments excluding mats of glass wool
yarns of glass fibre filaments, excluding yarns that are
currently falling within CN codes 7019 11 00, ex 7019 12 00
impregnated and coated and have a loss on ignition of more
and
ex 7019 31 00
(TARIC
codes
7019 12 00 21,
than 3 % (as determined by the ISO Standard 1887) currently
7019 12 00 22,
7019 12 00 23,
7019 12 00 24,
falling within CN code ex
7019
19
10 (TARIC codes
7019 12 00 39, 7019 31 00 29 and 7019 31 00 99) and orig
7019 19 10 61,
7019 19 10 62,
7019 19 10 63,
inating in the People’s Republic of China, shall be definitively
7019 19 10 64,
7019 19 10 65,
7019 19 10 66
and
collected. The amounts secured in excess of the rates of the
7019 19 10 79) and originating in the People’s Republic of
definitive anti-dumping duties shall be released.
China, shall be released.
Article 3
2. Amounts
secured
by
way
of
provisional
anti-dumping
duties pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 812/2010 on imports
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its
of chopped glass fibre strands, of a length of not more than
publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 9 March 2011.
For the Council
The President
CSFALVAY Z.

---