Regulation 2006/1136 - Definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of lever arch mechanisms from China

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 205/1

On 28 January 2006 the Commission imposed, by Regulation (EC) No 134/2006 (2) (‘the provisional Regulation’), a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports into the Community of lever arch mechanisms originating in the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’).

It is recalled that the investigation period of dumping and injury (‘IP’) covered the period from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004. The examination of trends relevant for the injury analysis covered the period from 1 January 2001 to the end of the IP (‘period considered’).

Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of lever arch mechanisms from the PRC, some interested parties submitted comments in writing. The parties, who so requested, were also granted an opportunity to be heard orally.

The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings. The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were examined, and, where considered appropriate, the provisional findings were modified accordingly.

It is recalled that, in recital (12) of the provisional Regulation, the product concerned was defined as lever arch mechanisms (‘LAM’) generally used for archiving sheets and other documents in binders or files. They consist of arched sturdy metal elements (normally two) on a back plate and having at least one opening trigger that permits inserting and filing of sheets and other documents, originating in the PRC (‘the product concerned’), normally falling within CN code ex 8305 10 00.

One interested party claimed that one specific type of LAM should be excluded from the definition of the product concerned because (i) that type is produced under a patented design owned by the interested party and is not available from any other manufacturer, (ii) there is an exclusive supply contract with a Chinese producer, (iii) the type is exclusively used in premium special lever arch files (‘LAF’) with a superior quality and design compared to standard LAM and is therefore not competing with the segment of standard LAM, and (iv) this type is not economically substitutable with standard LAM in view of its much higher cost of production.

However, another interested party claimed that all LAM have the same characteristics, end uses and channels of distribution. Moreover, it stated that the manufacturing processes and costs are irrelevant for the determination of the product concerned. It also stated that any preferential treatment of one type of LAM used by only one LAF producer would cause a serious distortion not only on the Community LAM market itself, but also on the Community market for LAF.

It is considered that a patented design or an exclusive contract between an exporting producer and a European user for a certain type of product does not, as such, justify the exclusion of this type from the definition of the product concerned or the like product. A LAM with all its characteristics remains...