{
  "url": "https://openlegislation.uk/eu-regulation-2015-1846/introduction",
  "json_url": "https://openlegislation.uk/eu-regulation-2015-1846/introduction.json",
  "legislation": "eur/2015/1846",
  "legislation_title": "Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1846 of 14 October 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of wire rod originating in the People's Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009",
  "legislation_url": "https://openlegislation.uk/eu-regulation-2015-1846",
  "path": "introduction",
  "kind": "introduction",
  "number": null,
  "heading": "Introductory text",
  "text": "Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1846\nof 14 October 2015\nimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of wire rod originating in the People's Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009\nTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 11(2) thereof,\nWhereas:\nA.\nPROCEDURE\n1.\nMeasures in force\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 703/2009 the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of wire rod originating in the People's Republic of China (‘China’).\n(2)\nThe measures imposed took the form of an ad valorem duty with a residual rate set at 24 % while one group of companies (Valin Group) received an individual duty rate of 7,9 %.\n2.\nRequest for an expiry review\n(3)\nFollowing the publication of a notice of impending expiry of the anti-dumping measures in force, the Commission received a request for the initiation of an expiry review of these measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.\n(4)\nThe request was lodged on 29 April 2014 by the European Steel Association (‘Eurofer’ or ‘the applicant’) on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production of wire rod.\n(5)\nThe request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union industry.\n3.\nInitiation of an expiry review\n(6)\nHaving determined, after having consulted the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, the Commission announced on 2 August 2014, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (‘Notice of Initiation’), the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.\n4.\nInvestigation\n4.1.\nRelevant periods covered by the expiry review investigation\n(7)\nThe investigation of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014 (the ‘review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2011 to the end of the review investigation period (the ‘period considered’).\n4.2.\nParties concerned by the investigation and sampling\n(8)\nThe Commission officially advised the applicant, exporting producers and importers known to be concerned and the representatives of the exporting country concerned of the initiation of the expiry review.\n(9)\nInterested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limits set in the Notice of Initiation. One interested party requested a hearing with the Commission services which took place on 20 March 2015.\n(10)\nIn view of the apparent large number of Chinese exporting producers and unrelated importers in the Union, sampling was envisaged in the Notice of Initiation in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.\n(11)\nIn order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a representative sample, Chinese exporting producers and unrelated importers were requested to make themselves known within 15 days of the initiation of the review and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the Notice of Initiation.\n(12)\nIn total 45 known Chinese exporting producers were contacted but none of them came forward and replied to the sampling form. Therefore, sampling was not applied.\n(13)\nIn view of the lack of cooperation, the Commission informed the Chinese authorities that in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation best facts available may be used. The Commission did not receive any comments or requests for an intervention of the Hearing Officer from the Chinese authorities.\n(14)\nIn total nine known unrelated importers were contacted. None came forward and replied to the sampling form.\n(15)\nAt the preliminary stage of investigation the Commission received cooperation from 28 Union producers/group of producers which represented around 70 % of the Union production of wire rod in the RIP. In view of the large number of cooperating producers the Commission applied sampling. The Commission selected the sample on the basis of the largest representative volume of production which could reasonably be investigated within the time available, considering also the geographical spread and sufficient coverage of different product types. The selected sample originally consisted of six companies and represented 44,2 % of the production intended for the free market.\n4.3.\nQuestionnaires and verification\n(16)\nQuestionnaires were sent to the six sampled Union producers and to two producers in potential analogue countries who agreed to cooperate.\n(17)\nQuestionnaire replies were received from the six sampled Union producers and the two potential analogue country producers.\n(18)\nVerification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\n(a) Union producers:\nArcelorMittal Hamburg GmbH, Germany\nGlobal Steel Wire SA, Spain\nMoravia Steel AS, Czech Republic\nRIVA Acier SA, France\nSaarstahl AG, Germany\nTata Steel UK Ltd, United Kingdom.\n(b) Analogue country producer:\nEreğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikalri T.A.S., Turkey.\nB.\nPRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\n1.\nProduct concerned\n(19)\nThe product subject to this review is the same as that covered by the original investigation, namely bars and rods, hot-rolled, in irregularly wound coils, of iron, non-alloy steel or alloy steel other than of stainless steel (‘wire rod’ or ‘the product concerned’) originating in China, currently falling within CN codes 7213 10 00, 7213 20 00, 7213 91 10, 7213 91 20, 7213 91 41, 7213 91 49, 7213 91 70, 7213 91 90, 7213 99 10, 7213 99 90, 7227 10 00, 7227 20 00, 7227 90 10, 7227 90 50 and 7227 90 95.\n2.\nLike product\n(20)\nThe review investigation confirmed that, as in the original investigation, the product concerned and wire rod produced and sold on the Chinese domestic market, wire rod produced and sold by the Union industry on the Union market and wire rod produced and sold in the analogue country (Turkey) have the same basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics and the same basic uses. Therefore these products are considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\nC.\nLIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF DUMPING\n(21)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the expiry of the existing measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping from China.\n1.\nPreliminary remarks\n(22)\nAs mentioned in recital 12 none of the Chinese exporting producers offered cooperation and therefore as provided for by Article 18 of the basic Regulation the findings had to be based on best facts available, in particular, information in the request for the expiry review and statistics, namely Eurostat and Chinese export database.\n2.\nDumping during the review investigation period\n(a)\nAnalogue country\n(23)\nAccording to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value had to be determined on the basis of the prices paid or payable on the domestic market or constructed value in an appropriate market economy third country (the ‘analogue country’).\n(24)\nIn the original investigation, Turkey was used as the analogue country for the purposes of establishing the normal value with regard to China. Based on the information in the review request, in the Notice of Initiation the Commission informed interested parties that it envisaged using Brazil as analogue country and invited parties to comment. The Notice of Initiation also added that other countries, in particular Turkey, Switzerland, Norway and Japan will be examined as well as. No comments were received from interested parties.\n(25)\nIn addition to Brazil, the Commission contacted all known or potential wire rod producers in Turkey, Switzerland, Norway and Japan (countries with significant imports of wire rod into the Union suggesting significant production) and the USA (a country with a big domestic industry and market).\n(26)\nEventually two producers of wire rod agreed to cooperate in the investigation and provided a reply to the analogue country questionnaire, namely Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikalri T.A.S. from Turkey and ArcelorMittal Brasil from Brazil.\n(27)\nA number of factors were taken into account when deciding on the most appropriate analogue country for the current investigation, in particular the size of the analogue country domestic market with satisfactory level of competition for the like product; representativeness of the domestic sales (quantity and profitability) of the cooperating producers; the size and product range offered by the cooperating producers and the comparability of their products and production method to that of China.\n(28)\nGiven the fact that Turkey and the Turkish cooperating exporting producer satisfied all major criteria for an appropriate analogue country/producer it was decided to use Turkey as analogue country.\n(b)\nNormal value\n(29)\nIn accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation it was first examined whether the total volume of domestic sales during the RIP of the like product to independent customers made by the cooperating analogue country producer was representative in comparison with the total export volume to the Union, namely whether the total volume of such domestic sales represented at least 5 % of the total volume of export sales made by the cooperating analogue country producer of the like product to the Union.\n(30)\nIt was also examined whether the domestic sales of the like product could be regarded as being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing the proportion of domestic sales to independent customers on the domestic market which were profitable during the RIP.\n(31)\nAs it was found that all domestic sales were made in sufficient quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, normal value was based on the actual domestic prices and was calculated as the weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales during the review investigation period.\n(c)\nExport price\n(32)\nIn the absence of cooperation from the Chinese exporting producers, and thus the absence of specific information on Chinese prices, the export price was determined on the basis of facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. Available statistical sources, namely Eurostat were used.\n(33)\nAccording to Eurostat, only 696 tonnes of wire rod were imported from China into the Union during the RIP, corresponding to 0,04 % of total imports. This amount is negligible in the light of total Union consumption (17,8 million tonnes).\n(d)\nComparison and adjustments\n(34)\nThe Commission compared the normal value and the export price on an ex-works basis. To ensure a fair comparison, the Commission adjusted the normal value and/or the export price for differences affecting prices and price comparability, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. In order to express the export price at ex-works level, the Commission adjusted the Eurostat CIF price for freight and insurance based on the information from the complaint. The domestic prices were adjusted for freight, insurance, handling and credit costs based on the data obtained from the analogue country producer.\n(e)\nDumping margin\n(35)\nIn accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price. The average Eurostat Chinese export price compared to the normal value of the analogue country did not show the existence of dumping.\n(36)\nAt the same time it is important to stress that as it is mentioned in recital 33 import volumes of the product concerned were very low during the RIP. It was also observed that for most CN codes the prices fluctuated heavily, in some cases with a ratio of up to 30 times throughout the period considered. Such fluctuations are difficult to explain by ‘normal’ market forces and most likely are the result of the low sales quantities.\n(37)\nFurthermore, due to the non-cooperation of the Chinese exporters, there was no information available on the product mix of the Chinese exports and consequently the comparison with the analogue country normal value could only be made on an aggregated basis.\n(38)\nTherefore, the finding of no dumping during the RIP is considered to be irrelevant due to the combined effect of low imported quantities; the irregular fluctuation of prices as well as the absence of information regarding the imported product mix.\n3.\nEvidence of likelihood of recurrence of dumping\n(39)\nIn light of the considerations set out in recitals 35 to 38 above, the Commission further analysed whether there was a likelihood of recurrence of dumping should the measures lapse. When doing so, the following elements were analysed: the Chinese production capacity and spare capacity, the behaviour of Chinese exporters on other markets and the attractiveness of the Union market.\n3.1.\nProduction and spare capacity in China\n(40)\nBased on the information provided by the Worldsteel Association the total Chinese wire rod production showed a strongly increasing trend for the last 10 years and culminated in over 150 million tonnes in 2013.\n(41)\nIn other words China is responsible for 77 % of the worldwide wire rod production meaning that this country can influence heavily market conditions by its sales decisions. It is important to highlight that its yearly production exceeds by more than seven times the total Union production. Furthermore, the overall increase in Chinese wire rod production since 2011 (26 million tonnes) in itself exceeds the total Union consumption estimated at 17 million tonnes.\n(42)\nAccording to the review request spare capacity is estimated at some 50 million tonnes in China. Due to the Chinese non-cooperation it was difficult to obtain additional information in this respect. However, in the light of high production levels referred to in recitals 40 and 41 in comparison to the European and worldwide figures China could easily cause severe distortions on the markets by its sales decisions even without using its spare capacity.\n3.2.\nChinese sales to third countries\n(43)\nAccording to the Chinese export database over 9 million tonnes of wire rod were exported worldwide by China during the RIP representing over 50 % of the total Union consumption in the same period. The table below summarises the figures for the six biggest countries in terms of Chinese export volume and Turkey, the analogue country, representing over 53 % of the total Chinese exports during the RIP.\nTable 1\nChinese wire rod exports to the world (volume and prices, EUR)\nSource: Chinese export database\nCountry\n2012 volume\naverage price 2012\n2013 volume\naverage price 2013\nRIP volume\naverage price RIP\nThailand\n756 919\n484\n1 009 662\n423\n1 152 561\n394\nSouth Korea\n1 153 833\n498\n1 109 207\n430\n1 134 587\n404\nVietnam\n390 995\n483\n684 193\n418\n774 175\n389\nIndonesia\n381 893\n487\n554 034\n432\n615 982\n401\nUnited states\n301 523\n458\n628 111\n408\n588 047\n391\nMalaysia\n333 185\n488\n447 220\n433\n469 895\n405\nTurkey\n2 937\n645\n6 931\n477\n30 717\n392\nTotal Chinese exports\n5 539 649\n7 943 297\n9 073 220\n(44)\nThe average export price found during the RIP for each of the above countries was significantly below the normal value. Hence, the dumping margins established with regard to Chinese average sales prices (as shown in the table above) to third countries ranged from 14 % to 24 %.\n(45)\nThe figures also reveal that China's exports are showing an increasing trend in volumes combined with a decreasing trend in prices. In fact available statistics indicate that the prices continued to further decrease after the RIP. A number of the affected countries perceived these trends as a threat to their own industry and have introduced protective measures (inter alia Malaysia and Indonesia and more recently, following the RIP Turkey, US and Pakistan).\n(46)\nFinally, recent press releases suggest that the Chinese domestic market and in particular the construction sector is slowing down. Hence, Chinese sales opportunities are diminishing: its main export markets are closing up and its main domestic sales are slowing down. Therefore, if measures in the Union were allowed to lapse there is a strong likelihood that China would immediately direct its low-priced (dumped) sales in large volumes toward the Union market.\n3.3.\nAttractiveness of the Union market\n(47)\nDue to the higher price levels on the Union market compared to the Chinese sales prices observed in other third countries as shown in Table 1, the Union market is considered to be attractive for the Chinese producers. The existence of protective measures in many export markets further increases the attractiveness of the Union market. Thus it can be reasonably expected that should measures be repealed, Chinese exports would resume in considerable volumes on the Union market. It is worth recalling that before the original measures were imposed, in 2008, Chinese sales volumes in the Union market amounted to 1,1 million tonnes as compared to 700 tonnes in the RIP.\n3.4.\nConclusion on the likelihood of recurrence of dumping\n(48)\nTaking into consideration the immense production level of wire rod in China and its dumping practices to third countries as well as the attractiveness of the Union market as described above, there is a strong likelihood that the repeal of the anti-dumping measures would result in immediate recurrence of dumping from China to the Union.\nD.\nDEFINITION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY\n(49)\nThe like product was manufactured by 72 Union producers during the review investigation period who constitute the ‘Union industry’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation. None of them was opposed to the initiation.\n(50)\nAll figures related to sensitive data had to be indexed or given in a range for reasons of confidentiality.\nE.\nSITUATION ON THE UNION MARKET\n1.\nUnion consumption\n(51)\nThe Commission established the Union consumption on the basis of the available import statistics, the actual sales of cooperating Union producers, excluding their export sales, and estimated sales of non-cooperating Union producers. The definition of consumption relates to free market sales, inclusive of captive sales but exclusive of captive use. Captive use, that is internal transfers of the like product within the integrated Union producers for further processing, has not been included in the Union consumption figure, because these internal transfers are not in competition with sales from independent suppliers in the free market. The captive sales, that is, the sales to related companies, were included in the Union consumption figure since according to the data collected during the investigation, the related companies of the Union producers were free to purchase wire rod also from other sources. In addition, the Union producers' average sales prices to related parties were found to be in line with the average sales prices to unrelated parties.\n(52)\nOn this basis, Union consumption developed as follows:\nTable 2\nUnion consumption\nSource: Eurostat and questionnaire replies\n2011\n2012\n2013\nReview investigation period\nVolume (tonnes)\n18 522 439\n16 024 244\n17 134 056\n17 826 678\nIndex (2011 = 100)\n100\n87\n93\n96\n(53)\nUnion consumption decreased by 4 % from 18,5 million tonnes in 2011 to 17,8 million tonnes in the review investigation period. Consumption during the period considered was lower than the consumption of 23,6 million tonnes in the investigation period of the original investigation (April 2007 to March 2008). The decrease in consumption is a consequence of the negative impact of the economic crisis that caused a reduction in the overall consumption of wire rod, in particular in the automotive and construction industries.\n2.\nImports from the country concerned\n(a)\nVolume and market share of imports from the country concerned\n(54)\nThe volume and market share of imports from China were established on the basis of Eurostat.\n(55)\nThe import volume into the Union from the country concerned and its market share developed as follows:\nTable 3\nImport volume and market share\nSource: Eurostat\nCountry\n2011\n2012\n2013\nReview investigation period\nChina\nVolume (tonnes)\n3 108\n911\n88\n696\nIndex (2011 = 100)\n100\n29\n3\n22\nMarket share (%)\n0,02\n0,01\n0,00\n0,00\nIndex (2011 = 100)\n100\n34\n3\n23\n(56)\nWhile Chinese imports accounted for 5 % market share and 1,1 million tonnes in the original investigation period, they have, based on information from Eurostat, virtually disappeared from the Union market. In fact, imports from China decreased from 3 108 to 696 tonnes over the period considered.\n(57)\nThe company with the 7,9 % duty rate is related to the ArcelorMittal group and according to the complainants does not produce significant quantities of wire rod any longer. However, the other Chinese exporting producers also ceased to sell into the Union. The wire rod market appears to be very price-sensitive and the 24 % price increase caused by the anti-dumping duty in force made Chinese exporters to lose interest in the Union market.\n(b)\nPrices of imports from the country concerned and price undercutting\n(58)\nImport prices were established on the basis of Eurostat. Due to the negligible import volumes from China to the EU, the lack of cooperation from Chinese producers and the lack of product type related price data on their negligible import quantities, it was not possible to perform a meaningful calculation of price undercutting. However, Chinese export prices to third countries as shown in Table 1 undercut the Union industry's sales prices by more than 25 % on average. Therefore, a similar significant level of undercutting on the Union market is expected should the measures be allowed to lapse.\n3.\nImports from other third countries not subject to measures\n(59)\nMajor exporting countries to the Union are Moldova, Norway, Russia, Ukraine and Switzerland. Total imports of the product concerned from third countries increased by 19,2 % (from 1,22 to 1,45 million tonnes) over the period considered, representing 7,5 % of the Union consumption. During the same period the average unit import price has been steadily decreasing from EUR 592 to EUR 506 per ton, a decrease of 14,6 %.\nTable 4\nImports from third countries\nSource: Eurostat\nCountry\n2011\n2012\n2013\nReview investigation period\nMoldova\nVolume (tonnes)\n47 084\n99 126\n86 083\n185 982\nIndex (2011 = 100)\n100\n211\n183\n395\nMarket share (%)\n0,25\n0,62\n0,50\n1,04\nAverage price (EUR/tonne)\n528\n483\n445\n438\nIndex (2011 = 100)\n100\n91\n84\n83\nNorway\nVolume (tonnes)\n130 614\n128 439\n125 267\n134 313\nIndex (2011 = 100)\n100\n98\n96\n103\nMarket share (%)\n0,71\n0,80\n0,73\n0,75\nAverage price (EUR/tonne)\n552\n538\n495\n486\nIndex (2011 = 100)\n100\n97\n90\n88\nRussia\nVolume (tonnes)\n47 185\n89 236\n91 037\n112 748\nIndex (2011 = 100)\n100\n189\n193\n239\nMarket share (%)\n0,25\n0,56\n0,53\n0,63\nAverage price (EUR/tonne)\n494\n486\n436\n425\nIndex (2011 = 100)\n100\n98\n88\n86\nUkraine\nVolume (tonnes)\n379 216\n193 955\n256 928\n307 276\nIndex (2011 = 100)\n100\n51\n68\n81\nMarket share (%)\n2,05\n1,21\n1,50\n1,72\nAverage price (EUR/tonne)\n505\n507\n457\n443\nIndex (2011 = 100)\n100\n100\n90\n88\nSwitzerland\nVolume (tonnes)\n290 689\n293 352\n297 980\n298 104\nIndex (2011 = 100)\n100\n101\n103\n103\nMarket share (%)\n1,57\n1,83\n1,74\n1,67\nAverage price (EUR/tonne)\n694\n632\n607\n596\nIndex (2011 = 100)\n100\n91\n87\n86\nTotal other third countries\nVolume (tonnes)\n1 220 464\n1 086 787\n1 250 867\n1 454 411\nIndex (2011 = 100)\n100\n89\n102\n119\nMarket share (%)\n6,59\n6,78\n7,30\n8,16\nAverage price (EUR/tonne)\n591\n564\n522\n506\nIndex (2011 = 100)\n100\n95\n88\n86\nTotal third countries\nVolume (tonnes)\n1 223 572\n1 087 698\n1 250 955\n1 455 107\nIndex (2011 = 100)\n100\n89\n102\n119\nMarket share (%)\n6,61\n6,79\n7,30\n8,16\nAverage price (EUR/tonne)\n592\n564\n522\n506\nIndex (2011 = 100)\n100\n95\n88\n85\n4.\nEconomic situation of the Union industry\n(60)\nIn accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry.\n(61)\nWhen doing so, the Commission distinguished between macroeconomic and microeconomic injury indicators. The macroeconomic indicators for the period considered were established, analysed and examined on the basis of the data provided for the Union industry. The microeconomic indicators were established on the basis of the data collected and verified at the level of the sampled Union producers.\n(62)\nIn the following sections, the macroeconomic indicators are: production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, stocks, sales volume, market share and growth, employment, productivity, magnitude of the actual dumping margin, recovery from past dumping. The microeconomic indicators are: average unit prices, cost of production, profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investment, ability to raise capital and labour costs.\n(a)\nProduction, production capacity and capacity utilisation\n(63)\nThe total Union production, production capacity and capacity utilisation developed over the period considered as follows:\nTable 5\nProduction, production capacity and capacity utilisation\nSource: Eurostat and questionnaire replies\n2011\n2012\n2013\nReview investigation period\nProduction volume(tonnes)\n21 502 127\n18 565 812\n19 742 360\n20 236 339\nProduction volumeIndex\n100\n86\n92\n94\nProduction capacity(tonnes)\n28 147 358\n28 001 765\n28 051 425\n28 061 036\nProduction capacityIndex\n100\n99\n100\n100\nCapacity utilisation(%)\n76\n66\n70\n72\n(64)\nDuring the period considered the production decreased by 6 %, production capacity remained stable and capacity utilisation dropped from 76 % to 72 %.\n(b)\nSales volume and market share\n(65)\nThe Union industry's sales volume and market share in the Union developed over the period considered as follows:\nTable 6\nSales volume and market share\nSource: Eurostat and questionnaire replies\n2011\n2012\n2013\nReview investigation period\nSales volume in the Union(tones)\n17 298 867\n14 936 546\n15 883 101\n16 371 571\nSales volume in the UnionIndex\n100\n86\n92\n95\nMarket share(%)\n93,4\n93,2\n92,7\n91,8\n(66)\nThe Union industry's sales in the Union market decreased by 5 % over the period considered.\n(c)\nGrowth\n(67)\nWhile Union consumption decreased by 4 % over the period considered, the sales volume of the Union industry decreased by 5 %, which translated in a loss of market share of 1,6 percentage points.\n(d)\nEmployment and productivity\n(68)\nEmployment and productivity developed over the period considered as follows:\nTable 7\nEmployment and productivity\nSource: questionnaire replies\n2011\n2012\n2013\nReview investigation period\nNumber of employees\n8 888\n8 851\n8 849\n8 991\nNumber of employeesIndex\n100\n100\n100\n101\nProductivity (unit/employee)\n2 419\n2 098\n2 231\n2 251\nProductivity (unit/employee)Index\n100\n87\n92\n93\n(69)\nEmployment remained rather stable during the period considered. At the same time, productivity dropped by 7 % due to the decrease in production as shown in Table 7 in recital 68.\n5.\nMagnitude of the dumping margin and recovery from past dumping\n(70)\nThe dumping margin established for China in the original investigation was well above the de minimis level, while the import volume from China remained at a negligible level throughout the period considered. However, should measures be repealed, the impact of the expected dumping on the Union industry would be significant based on the increasing volume and decreasing prices of exports from China to the third countries, as mentioned in recitals 45 and 46. The Union industry was still in a recovery process from the effects of past injurious dumping of imports of wire rods originating in China, as mentioned in recital 83.\n(a)\nPrices and factors affecting prices\n(71)\nThe average sales prices of the Union industry to unrelated customers in the Union developed over the period considered as follows:\nTable 8\nAverage sales prices\nSource: questionnaire replies\n2011\n2012\n2013\nReview investigation period\nAverage unit selling price in the Union(EUR/tonne)\n638\n588\n545\n539\nAverage unit selling price in the UnionIndex\n100\n92\n85\n85\nUnit cost of production(EUR/tonne)\n606\n581\n533\n514\nUnit cost of productionIndex\n100\n96\n88\n85\nThe Union industry's average unit selling price to unrelated customers in the Union and cost of production decreased both by 15 % over the period considered. Therefore, the sales price on average followed the evolution of the costs.\n(b)\nLabour costs\n(72)\nThe average labour costs of the Union industry developed over the period considered as follows:\nTable 9\nAverage labour costs per employee\nSource: questionnaire replies\n2011\n2012\n2013\nReview investigation period\nAverage labour costs per employee (EUR)\n51 320\n53 514\n52 366\n51 814\nAverage labour costs per employeeIndex\n100\n104\n102\n101\n(73)\nThe average labour costs per employee remained stable over the period considered. This could be mainly explained by the increasing efforts of the Union industry to control the cost of production and retain in this way its competitiveness.\n(c)\nInventories\n(74)\nStock levels of the Union producers developed over the period considered as follows:\nTable 10\nInventories\nSource: questionnaire replies\n2011\n2012\n2013\nReview investigation period\nClosing stocks(tonnes)\n400 531\n400 256\n429 765\n471 135\nClosing stocksIndex\n100\n100\n107\n118\nClosing stocks as a percentage of production(%)\n1,9\n2,2\n2,2\n2,3\n(75)\nIn the period considered the Union industry's stocks increased overall by 18 %. A significant part of the wire rods production consists of standard products and the Union industry therefore has to maintain a certain level of stock in order to be in a position to swiftly satisfy the demand of its customers. The closing stock as a percentage of the production remained relatively stable, following the evolution of the Union's industry production.\n(d)\nProfitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital\n(76)\nProfitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments of the Union producer developed over the period considered as follows:\nTable 11\nProfitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments\nSource: questionnaire replies\n2011\n2012\n2013\nReview investigation period\nProfitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover)\n5,1\n1,2\n2,3\n4,7\nCash flow (EUR)\n179 540 905\n82 626 580\n107 291 306\n159 860 366\nInvestments (EUR)\n103 206 819\n81 357 885\n62 499 682\n42 831 235\nReturn on investments (%)\n3,8\n– 0,1\n0,8\n3,0\n(77)\nThe Commission established the profitability of the Union industry by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of the like product to unrelated customers in the Union as a percentage of the turnover of those sales. Profitability decreased from 5,1 % to 4,7 %. This is lower than the target profit of 9,9 % that was established in the original investigation.\n(78)\nThe net cash flow is the Union industry's ability to self-finance their activities and it was positive during the period considered. However, the indicator registered a significant decrease of 11 %. This raises concerns as to the ability of the Union industry to carry on the necessary self-financing of its activities.\n(79)\nThe investments significantly decreased by 58 % over the period considered. They mainly represented investments necessary for modernisation, maintenance and compliance with legal safety requirements. The fact that no investments were made for capacity expansion may indicate a possible long term negative market trend.\n(80)\nThe return on investments is the net profit as a percentage of the gross book value of investments. This indicator decreased from 3,8 % to 3 % over the period considered due to the reduction of the profits.\n(81)\nTaking into account the decreasing profitability and decreasing cash flow, the company's ability to raise capital was also negatively affected.\n(e)\nCaptive production of the Union industry\n(82)\nBased on the information collected during the investigation the proportion of captive production was found not to be significant as approximately only 11 % of the Union industry's production is used captively within the group. In general, a higher volume of production leads to economies of scale which are beneficial for the producer concerned. The Union industry is mostly vertically integrated and the captive production is used for further processing into value added products in the downstream industry. The investigation did not point to any production problem linked to these downstream products. Indeed, captive production remained stable over the period considered. Given the above considerations, the Commission considers that the captive production of the Union industry did not have any negative impact on its financial situation.\n(f)\nConclusion on injury\n(83)\nDuring the period considered, all injury indicators pertaining to the Union industry showed a negative trend. More specifically, Union production decreased by 6 %, capacity utilisation dropped from 76 % to 72 %, market share was reduced by 1,6 percentage points from 93,4 % to 91,8 % and closing stocks increased by 18 %. Furthermore, other injury indicators such as sales volumes to unrelated parties in the Union (– 6 %) and exports to unrelated parties (– 22 %) also followed a negative trend. Unit sale prices to unrelated parties in the Union and the cost of production decreased both by 15 %. Profitability decreased from 5,1 % to 4,7 %, which is lower than the target profit of 9,9 % that was established in the original investigation. Investments significantly decreased by 58 % and cash flow was reduced by 11 %. Given that employment remained rather stable, productivity dropped by 7 %.\n(84)\nHowever, these negative trends cannot be attributed to Chinese imports, given that they were limited in volume and market share. The analysis therefore turns to the impact that a resumption of Chinese imports would have on the Union industry that has not fully recovered from past Chinese dumping practices.\nF.\nLIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OR CONTINUATION OF INJURY\n1.\nPreliminary remark\n(85)\nAlthough the import volumes from China decreased significantly after the imposition of measures in 2009, it is considered that the remaining significant production capacity in China may be easily diverted to the Union market if measures are allowed to lapse.\n2.\nImpact of the projected volume of imports from China and price effects in case of repeal of measures\n(86)\nAs established in recitals 40-42 above, total production capacity of wire rod is over 150 million tonnes while the estimated spare capacity is around 50 million tonnes. Both these amounts largely exceed the total Union consumption of wire rod. Moreover, as is evident from the Chinese statistics, China managed in the past years to redirect its excess production from the Union to other countries where less trade restraints were present. This has however changed as some of the third markets have recently introduced protective measures effectively closing or at least impairing access for Chinese imports. In any event, the Union market remains attractive due to the relatively high sales prices for the product concerned compared to other third countries markets. Thus, it can be reasonably expected that, as a consequence to the attractiveness of the Union market with its size and price levels, should the measures be repealed, a substantial part of the current Chinese production would be re-directed to the Union. Taking into account the current injury picture and the dumping practices of the Chinese exporters, the investigation showed that the discontinuation of measures in all likelihood would result in a significant increase of exports from China at dumped prices, thus causing material injury to the Union industry.\n3.\nConclusion\n(87)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it is concluded that the repeal of measures on the imports from China would in all likelihood result in the recurrence of injury to the Union industry.\nG.\nUNION INTEREST\n(88)\nIn accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether maintaining the existing anti-dumping measures against China would be against the interest of the Union as a whole. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers and users.\n(89)\nAll interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known pursuant to Article 21(2) of the basic Regulation.\n(90)\nOn this basis the Commission examined whether, despite the conclusions on the likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it was not in the Union interest to maintain the existing measures.\n1.\nInterest of the Union industry\n(91)\nThe Union industry has consistently lost market share and has suffered material injury during the period considered. Should measures be repealed, the Union industry would in all likelihood be in an even worse situation.\n(92)\nIt was therefore concluded that maintaining the measures in force against China would be in the interest of the Union industry.\n2.\nInterest of importers/traders\n(93)\nNone of the importers/traders came forward in this expiry review investigation. There are no indications that a continuation of measures would have any significant negative effect on their activities.\n3.\nInterest of users\n(94)\nNone of the users came forward in this expiry review investigation. Concerning users, in the original investigation it was concluded that the overall possible impact of the imposition of measures on the activity of the users would be very limited. Firstly, the vast majority of users purchase their wire rod from non-Chinese sources which are abundant. Secondly, the possible impact from the imposition of measures should be seen in the light of the downstream products which enjoy a high added value. On this basis, it is concluded that the maintenance of the measures would not negatively impact the current situation of the users.\n4.\nConclusion on Union interest\n(95)\nIn view of the above, the Commission concluded that there are no compelling reasons of Union interest against the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures against China.\nH.\nANTI-DUMPING MEASURES\n(96)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained. They were also granted a period to submit comments subsequent to that disclosure. One interested party submitted comments supporting the Commission's conclusions.\n(97)\nIt follows from the above that, as provided for by Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of wire rod originating in China, imposed by Regulation (EC) No 703/2009 should be maintained.\n(98)\nIn order to minimise the risk of circumvention due to the high difference in the duty rates, it is considered that special measures are needed in this case to ensure the proper application of the anti-dumping duties. These special measures, which only apply to company for which an individual duty rate is introduced, include the following: the presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in Article 1, paragraph 3 of this Regulation. Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall be made subject to the residual anti-dumping duty applicable to all other producers.\n(99)\nA company may request the application of these individual anti-dumping duty rates if it changes subsequently the name of its entity. The request must be addressed to the Commission. The request must contain all the relevant information enabling to demonstrate that the change does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it. If the change of name of the company does not affect its right to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it, a notice informing about the change of name will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.\n(100)\nThis Regulation is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:",
  "extent": "E+W+S+N.I.",
  "status": null,
  "version": "current",
  "annotations": [
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "label": "f1",
      "text": "OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51."
    },
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "label": "f2",
      "text": "Council Regulation (EC) No 703/2009 of 27 July 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of wire rod originating in the People's Republic of China and terminating the proceeding concerning imports of wire rod originating in the Republic of Moldova and Turkey (OJ L 203, 5.8.2009, p. 1)."
    },
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "label": "f3",
      "text": "OJ C 318, 1.11.2013, p. 6."
    },
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "label": "f4",
      "text": "OJ C 252, 2.8.2014, p. 7."
    },
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "label": "f5",
      "text": "2014 Steel statistical yearbook by Worldsteel Association, http://www.worldsteel.org/dms/internetDocumentList/statistics-archive/yearbook-archive/Steel-Statistical-Yearbook-2014/document/Steel-Statistical-Yearbook-2014.pdf"
    },
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "label": "f6",
      "text": "This figure includes both carbon and stainless steel wire rod (stainless steel is not the product concerned). Eurofer, a member of the International Stainless Steel Forum, estimated that throughout the period considered and including the RIP stainless steel wire rod production is less than 5 % of the total wire rod production in China."
    },
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "label": "f7",
      "text": "For confidentiality reasons the concrete dumping margins established cannot be disclosed and therefore are presented in ranges."
    },
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "label": "f8",
      "text": "Turkey increased its regular duty rate up to 40 % on wire rod in November 2014, which is after the RIP and therefore did not distort the analogue country findings."
    },
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "label": "f9",
      "text": "South China Morning Post dated 20 January 2015, Le Figaro dated 26 March 2015, The Australian Financial review dated 20 April 2015, CNBC dated 7 May 2015."
    },
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "label": "f10",
      "text": "Wire rod is widely used in the construction sector."
    },
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "label": "f11",
      "text": "European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate H, Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 170, 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË."
    }
  ],
  "outstanding_effects": [],
  "provenance": {
    "source": "legislation.gov.uk",
    "source_url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2015/1846/introduction",
    "retrieved_at": "2026-11-01T14:46:23.037680+00:00"
  },
  "licence": "Open Government Licence v3.0",
  "licence_url": "https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/",
  "attribution": "Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Source: legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives."
}