Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2011)863 - Definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof from China and Taiwan - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2011)863 - Definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof from China and Taiwan. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2011)863  |
| date | 07-12-2011 |
Grounds for and objectives of the proposal This proposal concerns the application of 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’), in the expiry review proceeding concerning the anti-dumping duty in force in respect of imports of stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the People's Republic of China and Taiwan.
General context This proposal is made in the context of the implementation of the basic Regulation and is the result of an investigation which was carried out in line with the substantive and procedural requirements laid out in the basic Regulation.
Existing provisions in the area of the proposal A definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof falling within CN codes 7318 12 10, 7318 14 10, 7318 15 30, 7318 15 51, 7318 15 61 and 7318 15 70 originating in the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam was imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1890/2005 i as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 768/2009 i.
Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union Not applicable.
2) CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Consultation of interested parties
Interested parties concerned by the proceeding have had the possibility to defend their interests during the investigation, in line with the provisions of the basic Regulation.
Collection and use of expertise
There was no need for external expertise.
Impact assessment This proposal is the result of the implementation of the basic Regulation. The basic Regulation does not provide for a general impact assessment but contains an exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed.
3)
Summary of the proposed action On 19 November 2010, the Commission initiated upon a substantiated request by the European Industrial Fasteners Institute ('EIFI') on behalf of five Union producers an expiry review of the anti-dumping duty in force in respect of imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the People's Republic of China and Taiwan. The review investigation found continuing dumping of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the People's Republic of China and Taiwan, which, should anti-dumping measures be allowed to lapse, would result in the recurrence of injury to the Union industry. It was further established that continuation of measures would not be against the interest of the Union. Therefore, it is suggested that the Council adopts the attached proposal for a Regulation in order to prolong the existing measures, which should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by 18 February 2012 at the latest.
Legal basis Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.
Subsidiarity principle The proposal falls under the exclusive competence of the European Union. The subsidiarity principle therefore does not apply.
Proportionality principle The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reasons:
The form of action is described in the above-mentioned basic Regulation and leaves no scope for national decision.
Indication of how financial and administrative burden falling upon the Union, national governments, regional and local authorities, economic operators and citizens is minimized and proportionate to the objective of the proposal is not applicable.
Choice of instruments
Proposed instruments: regulation.
Other means would not be adequate for the following reason: The basic Regulation does not provide for alternative options.
4)
The proposal has no implication for the Union budget.