THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European CommunityOJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 7 thereof,After consulting the Advisory Committee,Whereas:A.PROCEDURE1.Initiation(1)On 16 February 2012, the European Commission (the Commission) announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 44, 16.2.2012, p. 33. (Notice of Initiation), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People's Republic of China (the PRC), Thailand and Indonesia (the countries concerned).(2)The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 3 January 2012 by the Defence Committee of Tube or Pipe Cast Fittings, of Malleable Cast Iron of the European Union (the complainant) on behalf of producers representing more than 50 %, of the total Union production of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron ("threaded malleable fittings"). The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an investigation.2.Parties concerned by the proceeding(3)The Commission officially advised the complainant, the Union producers, the exporting producers, unrelated importers, users and the representatives of the exporting countries of the initiation of the investigation. The Commission also advised producers in Argentina as it was envisaged as a possible analogue country. Interested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the Notice of Initiation.(4)All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.(5)In view of the large number of exporting producers in the PRC, Union producers and unrelated importers, sampling was envisaged in the Notice of Initiation in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all exporting producers in the PRC, Union producers and unrelated importers were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the Notice of Initiation, basic information on their activities related to threaded malleable fittings (as defined in Section B Below) for the period from 1.1.2011 to 31.12.2011. No sampling was envisaged for the exporting producers in the other two countries concerned, Thailand and Indonesia.(6)In order to allow exporting producers in the PRC to submit a claim for market economy treatment (MET) or individual treatment (IT), if they so wished, the Commission sent claim forms to the exporting producers in the PRC known to be concerned and to the Chinese authorities. Two companies requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, and four companies requested IT pursuant to Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.(7)The Commission officially disclosed the MET findings to the exporting producers concerned in the PRC, the Chinese authorities and the complainant. They were also given an opportunity to make their views known in writing.(8)As regards the Union producers and as duly explained in recital (29) below, six Union producers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in a sample. On the basis of the information received from the cooperating Union producers, the Commission selected a sample of three Union producers on the basis of their sales volume.(9)As explained in recital (31) below, 33 unrelated importers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. On the basis of the information received from these parties, the Commission selected a sample of nine importers having the largest volume of imports to the Union and their geographic location in the Union. As one importer did not submit a questionnaire reply, the final sample consisted of the remaining eight importers.(10)As explained in recital (30) below, 12 exporting producers in the PRC provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. On the basis of the information received from these parties, the Commission selected a sample of three exporting producers in the PRC having the largest volume of exports to the Union.(11)The Commission sent questionnaires to the three sampled Union producers, the three sampled Chinese exporting producers, three Thai exporting producers, three Indonesian exporting producers, nine sampled unrelated importers and seven users.(12)Questionnaire replies were received from three sampled Union producers, three Chinese exporting producers, two Thai exporting producers, one Indonesian exporting producer and eight unrelated importers. None of the users submitted a questionnaire reply.(13)The Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for a provisional determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:(a)Union producersATUSA Accesorios de Tuberia S.A., Salvatierra (Alava), SpainBerg Montana Fittings EAD, Montana, BulgariaGeorg Fischer Fittings GmbH, Traisen, Austria(b)Exporting producers in the PRCHebei Jianzhi Casting Group Ltd., Yutian County, Hebei, PRCJinan Meide Casting Co., Ltd., Pingyin, Shandong, PRCQingdao Madison Industrial Co., Ltd., Jimo, Shandong, PRC(c)Exporting producers in ThailandSiam Fittings Co., Ltd., Samutsakorn, Thailand;BIS Pipe Fitting Industry Co., Ltd, Samutsakorn, Thailand(d)Exporting producer in IndonesiaPT. Tri Sinar Purnama, Semarang, Indonesia(e)Unrelated importers in the UnionCrane Limited, Ipswich, United KingdomGEBO Armaturen GmbH, Schwelm, GermanyHitachi Metals Europe GmbH, Düsseldorf, GermanyMegaGroup Trade Holding B.V., Veghel, the NetherlandsRaccorditalia s.r.l., Brugherio(MB), Italy(14)In view of the need to establish a normal value for the exporting producers in the PRC in case MET is not granted to them, a verification to establish normal value on the basis of data from India as analogue country took place at the premises of the following company:Jainson Industries, Jalandhar, Punjab, India3.Investigation period and period considered(15)The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1.1.2011 to 31.12.2011 ("the investigation period" or "IP"). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 2008 to the end of the investigation period (the period considered).B.PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT1.Product concerned(16)The product concerned as described in the Notice of Initiation is threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron ("the product concerned"), currently falling within CN code ex73071910.(17)The main input raw materials are metal scrap, coke/electricity, sand (for moulding) and zinc (for galvanisation). The first step of the manufacturing process is the melting of metal scrap in cupolas. This is followed by the moulding process and the casting of the various shapes which are then separated into single pieces. The products have to go through a lengthy annealing process to ensure that they are sufficiently malleable to be used in applications where e.g. shock and vibration resistance are required and to withstand quick temperature changes. Subsequently, fittings can be galvanized, if needed. Then the threading of the products takes place.(18)Threaded malleable fittings are used for connecting two or more pipes or tubes, connecting a pipe to an apparatus, changing the direction of a fluid flow, or closing a pipe. Threaded malleable fittings are mainly used in the gas, water and heating systems of residential and non-residential buildings. They are also used in the pipe systems of oil refineries. Malleable fittings are available in many configurations, the most common being 90-degree elbows, tees, couplings, crosses, and unions. They are produced in both black (non-galvanized) and galvanized form.2.Like product(19)The product concerned and the product produced and sold on the domestic market of the PRC, Thailand and Indonesia, and on the domestic market of India, which served as an analogue country, as well as the product manufactured and sold in the Union by the Union industry were found to have the same basic physical and technical characteristics. They are therefore provisionally considered as alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation (the like product).Claims regarding product scope(20)Several claims have been submitted in respect of the product scope, mostly by importers but also by authorities of a Member State. The claims are addressed individually below.Electro-galvanized fittings(21)An importer claimed that "electro-galvanized fittings" should be excluded from the definition of the threaded malleable fittings. It is argued that the production of electro-galvanized fittings requires additional production steps after threading, such as washing and an additional electrical galvanization. This arguably leads to a number of quality improvements and advantages vis-à-vis regular fittings. However, it is clear that electro-galvanized fittings are fully interchangeable with regular fittings, and therefore have the same basic physical and technical characteristics. They are therefore considered to be product concerned.Bodies of compression fittings(22)The same importer imports bodies of compression fittings, which it further assembles together with other parts into finished compression fittings. It has been questioned whether the bodies of compression fittings fall under the definition of the product concerned. While these bodies look like a fitting and are threaded, they cannot be used directly to connect pipes – they have to be assembled before the assembled fitting connects the pipes. Although they are more expensive, they are interchangeable with other threaded fittings, since they are also used to connect pipes and tubes, albeit mainly in repairing rather than in new installations. It is therefore provisionally concluded that compression fittings and their bodies fall within the definition of the product concerned.Black heart and white heart fittings(23)Some parties claimed that the malleable fittings manufactured and sold by the Union producers could not be considered comparable to those produced and exported to the Union by the exporting countries concerned on the grounds that the grade of the material used for the Union produced ones is, in general, white heart, while the grade of the material used for the exported ones is black heart malleable cast iron.(24)As already concluded in Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2000OJ L 208, 18.8.2000, p. 8. Rec. 14f. regarding the same product, the investigation has provisionally shown that there is no difference in market perception distinguishing between white heart fittings and black heart fittings as in all respects other than the carbon content they have closely resembling characteristics, the same end uses and are thus interchangeable. This has been confirmed by the fact that the importers/traders which purchase both black heart malleable fittings from the countries concerned and white heart malleable fittings produced by the Union industry, sell them to the users without making a distinction between the two grades of material. As to the users of the product under consideration, the investigation has confirmed that they do not differentiate between white heart and black heart fittings to any significant degree.(25)This is also suggested by the fact that both white heart and black heart fittings are included in the European Standard EN 10242 and in the international standard ISO 49, which specify the requirements for the design and performance of the malleable fittings. As concerns, in particular, the grade of the material used, both white heart and black heart are admitted.(26)Given the above, it is provisionally concluded that the white heart malleable fittings manufactured and sold by part of the Union producers should be considered as like product to the black heart malleable fittings produced and exported to the Union by the exporting countries concerned.Claim regarding import of unthreaded fittings(27)One importer imports limited quantities of unfinished fittings which are not threaded. The threading is applied subsequently by the importer. Since the imported goods are not threaded, they are not considered as product concerned.Claim regarding the definition of "malleable cast iron" under the Combined Nomenclature(28)The authorities of one of the Member States pointed out the fact that, according to the explanatory notes to the Combined NomenclatureOJ C 137, 6.5.2011, p. 1., the expression "malleable" includes spheroidal graphite cast iron (identical to ductile cast iron). While no sales of threaded fittings made from ductile cast iron were reported by any interested party during the IP, there is evidence that this is possible. As these fittings have the same basic physical characteristics as the threaded malleable fittings investigated, it is considered appropriate to clarify that ductile iron products are falling within the scope of the proceeding and the measures.C.SAMPLING1.Sampling of Union producers(29)In accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a sample based on the largest representative volume of sales of threaded malleable fittings to unrelated customers in the Union, which can reasonably be investigated within the time available. The selected sample consists of three producers belonging to two groups of companies, representing 81 % of sales of threaded malleable fittings to unrelated customers in the Union out of six Union producers known to produce the like product. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, all Union producers and the complainant were consulted, and all interested parties were invited to comment on the proposed sample. No comments on the selection of the sample were made.2.Sampling of exporting producers in the PRC(30)In accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a sample based on the largest representative volume of exports which can reasonably be investigated within the time available. Twelve exporting producers accounting for 51 % of Chinese exports to the Union during the IP submitted sampling information requested in Annex A to the Notice of Initiation. The selected sample consists of three companies, representing 88 % of the export volume of the cooperating parties from the PRC to the Union. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, all exporting producers concerned and the Chinese authorities were consulted. No comments on the selection of the sample were made.3.Sampling of unrelated importers(31)In accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a sample based on the largest representative volume of imports into the Union as well as the geographical location of the companies, which can reasonably be investigated within the time available. A total of 33 unrelated importers submitted the sampling information requested in Annex B to the Notice of Initiation. The initial sample selected consists of six importers in five Member States, representing 59 % of imports of threaded malleable fittings of cooperating importers into the Union. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, all importers were consulted. Following comments, three further companies were added to the sample, resulting in a final sample of nine importers in six Member States, representing 67 % of imports of threaded malleable fittings of cooperating importers into the Union No further comments were received on the enlarged sample. As one importer did not submit a questionnaire reply, the final sample consisted of the remaining eight importers.D.DUMPING1.People's Republic of China1.1.Market economy treatment(32)Pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance with Article 2(1) to (6) for those producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.(33)Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out below:1.business decisions are made in response to market conditions and without significant State interference, and costs reflect market values;2.firms have one clear set of basic accounting records, which are independently audited, in line with international accounting standards and applied for all purposes;3.there are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system;4.legal certainty and stability is provided by bankruptcy and property laws; and5.currency exchanges are carried out at the market rate.(34)Two exporting producers requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and replied to the MET claim form within the given deadlines.(35)The Commission sought all the information deemed necessary and verified all the information submitted in the MET claims at the premises of the companies in question.(36)The verification established that both exporting producers claiming MET did not meet the requirements of the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.(37)The audited accounts of both exporters did not comply with international accounting standards, and the audited accounts of one exporter were even incomplete, as they did not include a cash-flow statement. It is therefore evident that they fail to comply with criterion 2.(38)One exporter could not demonstrate that the capital contributed during its privatisation was properly evaluated, while the second exporter received state benefits mainly in the form of a preferential income tax rate. They therefore fail to comply with criterion 3.(39)One company claiming MET commented on the disclosure. It did not dispute any of the facts contained in the disclosure, but raised three main issues in its comments.(40)Firstly, it argued that the MET determination is illegal, since it was made almost two months after the statutory deadline. In this respect, is has to be mentioned that this delay was mainly due to the fact that an earlier MET verification could not take place as the Chinese exporters were not available at that time. It should be underlined that the timing of the determination did not have any impact on the outcome.(41)Secondly, it was argued that the non-compliance with the audited accounts is exclusively based on formal grounds. Furthermore, it was argued that "an accounting practice that is not fully formally in line with IAS does not constitute a violation of the second MET criterion as long as it has not affected the company's financial results." In this respect, it is worth noting that criterion 2 does not have any reference to the financial results of the company. The claim is therefore unfounded. The relevant criterion, "accounting records which are independently audited in line with international accounting standards", is indeed a formal requirement. It is nevertheless worth mentioning that all violations were of a significant nature, either due to the magnitude of the amounts involved or the significance of the violation (i.e. a mandatory analysis was simply not carried out).(42)Lastly, it was claimed that the benefits received in the form of a preferential income tax rate have not been used in the past to deny MET. In this respect, it is noted that every case is judged on its own merits. Under MET criterion 3 it is assessed whether the Chinese exporters are subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system. Such is the case here with regard to state benefits, which were mainly in the form of a preferential tax rate. General comments of the kind put forward by the Chinese exporter are therefore not sufficiently substantiated.(43)In conclusion, it has not been shown that MET criteria 2 and 3 were fulfilled by either of the exporting producers. Therefore, MET cannot be granted to these companies.1.2.Individual treatment(44)Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, a country-wide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under that provision, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.(45)Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out below:1.in the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate capital and profits;2.export prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale are freely determined;3.the majority of the shares belong to private persons. State officials appearing on the Boards of Directors or holding key management positions shall either be in minority or it must demonstrated that the company is nonetheless sufficiently independent from state interference;4.exchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate; and5.state interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.(46)The exporting producers which did not meet the MET criteria as well as the third sampled producer all claimed IT. On the basis of the information available, it was provisionally established that all sampled exporting producers fulfilled the requirements foreseen in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation and, thus, can be granted IT.1.3.Analogue country(47)According to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for the exporting producers not granted MET shall be established on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country ("analogue country").(48)In the Notice of Initiation the Commission indicated its intention to use Argentina as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value for the PRC and invited all interested parties to comment thereon.(49)A number of exporters and importers have submitted comments on the choice of the analogue country arguing that Argentina would not be a suitable analogue country, mainly due to the low level of domestic competition and the consequent high price level on the Argentinian domestic market. Indeed, there are indications that the Argentinian market is largely shared between three domestic producers. According to Argentinian statistics, imports into the Argentinian market are negligible, since the traditionally largest foreign suppliers Brazil and China are subject to high anti-dumping duties.(50)The same exporters and importers proposed Thailand, India and Indonesia as more suitable analogue countries. Taking account of the comments by interested parties, cooperation from Argentinian and Indian producers was sought, and finally one Argentinian and one Indian producer accepted to cooperate.(51)An analysis of these replies showed that the domestic prices reported by the sole cooperating Argentinian producer were indeed very high, substantially higher than the sales prices of the sampled Union producers as well as their non-injurious price.(52)On the other hand, it turned out that the Indian market is highly competitive with an estimated number of 300 producers. As a result, the domestic prices reported by the cooperating Indian exporter can be considered reasonable.(53)Thailand and Indonesia are involved in the same investigation, but a very limited number of producers operate in both countries rendering their domestic markets less competitive compared to India. It is therefore provisionally concluded that India is an appropriate analogue country in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.1.4.Normal Value(54)Since no sampled Chinese exporter was granted MET, normal value was established pursuant to the provision of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, using India as analogue market economy third country.(55)It was first established for each exporting producer concerned, whether the total domestic sales of threaded malleable fittings of the analogue country producer were representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales represented at least 5 % of each exporting producer's total volume of export sales of the product concerned to the Union during the IP. This was the case for two of the three sampled exporting producers.(56)Subsequently, those product types sold domestically by the companies where the analogue country producer had overall representative domestic sales that were identical or directly comparable with the types sold for export to the Union were identified.(57)For each type sold by the analogue country producer on its domestic market and found to be directly comparable with the type of threaded malleable fittings sold for export to the Union by the exporting producers, it was established whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative. Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered sufficiently representative when the volume of that product type sold on the domestic market to independent customers during the IP represented at least 5 % of the total volume of the comparable product type sold for export to the Union by the exporting producer.(58)The Commission subsequently examined for the analogue country producer whether each type of the like product sold domestically in representative quantities could be considered as being sold in the ordinary course of trade. This was done by establishing for each product type the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market during the IP.(59)Where the sales volume of a product type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of that type, and where the weighted average sales price of that type was equal to or higher than the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price. This price was calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that type made during the IP.(60)Where the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of profitable sales of that type only.(61)Where the product types were all sold at a loss, it was considered that they were not sold in the ordinary course of trade.(62)For sales of product types not made in the ordinary course of trade, as well as for product types which were not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, a constructed normal value was used.(63)To construct normal value, the weighted average selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses incurred and the weighted average profit realised by the sole cooperating analogue country producer on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade during the investigation period, was added to its own average cost of production during the investigation period. For any product type sold in non-representative quantities in the domestic market, the weighted average profit and SG&A expenses in the ordinary course of trade of these non-representative sales was used to construct normal value. Where necessary, the costs of production and SG&A expenses were adjusted, before being used in the ordinary course of trade test and in constructing normal values.1.5.Export price(64)As the sampled producers were granted IT and made export sales of the product concerned to the Union directly to independent customers in the Union, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, namely on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable.1.6.Comparison(65)The comparison between normal value and export price was made on an ex-works basis.(66)For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.(67)Appropriate adjustments for physical characteristics, indirect taxes, transport, insurance, handling loading and ancillary costs, packing, credit, commissions and bank charges were made in all cases where they were found to be reasonable, accurate and supported by verified evidence.1.7.Dumping margins(68)For the sampled companies, the weighted average normal value of each type of the like product established for the analogue country was compared with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned, as provided for in Articles 2(11) and 2(12) of the basic Regulation.(69)On this basis the provisional weighted average dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:

Company	Dumping Margin
Hebei Jianzhi	67,8 %
Jinan Meide	39,3 %
Qingdao Madison	32,1 %

(70)The weighted average dumping margin of the cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample was calculated in accordance with the provisions of Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation. This margin was established on the basis of the margins established for the sampled exporting producers.(71)On this basis, the dumping margin calculated for the cooperating companies not included in the sample was provisionally established at 42,3 %.(72)With regard to all other exporting producers in the PRC, the dumping margins were established on the basis of the facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. To this end the level of cooperation was first established by comparing the volume of exports to the Union reported by the cooperating exporting producers with the equivalent Eurostat import statistics.(73)As the cooperation accounted for more than 50 % of total Chinese exports to the Union and the industry can be considered fragmented due to the high number of exporting producers in the PRC, the level of cooperation can be considered high. Since there was no reason to believe that any exporting producer deliberately abstained from cooperating, the residual dumping margin was set at the level of the sampled company with the highest dumping margin. This was considered appropriate since there were no indications that the non-cooperating companies were dumping at a lower level, and in order to ensure the effectiveness of any measures.(74)On this basis the provisional weighted average dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:

Company	Dumping Margin
Hebei Jianzhi	67,8 %
Jinan Meide	39,3 %
Qingdao Madison	32,1 %
Other cooperating companies	42,3 %
All other companies	67,8 %

2.Thailand and Indonesia2.1.Normal Value(75)In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first established for each of the cooperating exporting producers whether its total domestic sales of the like product were representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales represented at least 5 % of its total volume of export sales of the product concerned to the Union. The investigation established that the domestic sales of the like product were representative for all cooperating exporting producers in Thailand and Indonesia.(76)The Commission subsequently identified those product types sold domestically by the companies having overall representative domestic sales that were identical or closely resembling with the types sold for export to the Union.(77)For each type of the like product sold by the exporting producers on their domestic market and found to be comparable with the type of the product concerned sold for export to the Union, it was established whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered sufficiently representative when the volume of that product type sold on the domestic market to independent customers during the IP represented at least 5 % of the total volume of the comparable product type sold for export to the Union.(78)The Commission subsequently examined whether each type of the like product sold domestically in representative quantities could be considered as being sold in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing for each product type the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market during the investigation period.(79)Where the sales volume of a product type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of that type, and where the weighted average sales price was equal to or higher than the unit cost, normal value, by product type, was calculated as the weighted average of all domestic sales prices of the type in question.(80)Where the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that product type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the unit cost, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, which was calculated as the weighted average price of only the profitable domestic sales of the type in question.(81)Where the product types were all sold at a loss, it was considered that they were not sold in the ordinary course of trade.(82)For sales of product types not made in the ordinary course of trade, as well as for product types which were not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, a constructed normal value was used.(83)To construct normal value, the weighted average selling, general and administrative ("SG&A") expenses incurred and the weighted average profit realised by the cooperating exporting producers concerned on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade during the investigation period, was added to their own average cost of manufacturing during the investigation period. For any product type sold in non-representative quantities in the domestic market, the weighted average profit and SG&A expenses in the ordinary course of trade of these non-representative sales was used to construct normal value.2.2.Export price(84)As all exports of the product concerned of the cooperatng Thai and Indonesian exporters were made to independent customers in the Union, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, namely on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable.2.3.Comparison(85)The comparison between normal value and export price was made on an ex-works basis.(86)For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.(87)Appropriate adjustments for level of trade, transport, insurance, handling loading and ancillary costs, packing, credit, commissions and bank charges were made in all cases where they were found to be reasonable, accurate and supported by verified evidence.2.4.Dumping margins(a)Thailand(88)For the two cooperating companies in Thailand, the weighted average normal value of each type of the like product was compared with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned, as provided for in Article 2(11) and 2(12) of the basic Regulation.(89)Given that the level of cooperation was considered to be high (the volume of exports of the two cooperating Thai companies represented more than 80 % of total Thai exports to the Union during the IP), the dumping margin for all other Thai exporting producers was set at the level of the highest dumping margin of the two cooperating companies.(90)On this basis the provisional weighted average dumping margins for Thai companies expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:

Company	Dumping Margin
BIS Pipe Fitting Industry Co., Ltd	15,9 %
Siam Fittings Co., Ltd	50,7 %
All other companies	50,7 %

(b)Indonesia(91)For the sole cooperating company, the weighted average normal value of each type of thelike product was compared with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned, as provided for in Article 2(11) and 2(12) of the basic Regulation.(92)Given that the level of cooperation was considered to be high (the volume of exports of the sole cooperating Indonesian company represented more than 80 % of total Indonesian exports to the Union during the IP), the dumping margin for all other Indonesian exporting producers was set at the same level as for the cooperating company.(93)On this basis the provisional weighted average dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:

Company	Dumping Margin
PT. Tri Sinar Purnama	11,0 %
All other companies	11,0 %

E.INJURY1.Union production(94)During the IP, the like product was manufactured by six producers in the Union. As indicated under recital (29) above, two groups of Union producers, comprised of three Union producers were selected in the sample, representing 81 % of the total Union production of the like product.2.Definition of the Union industry(95)Within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation, all six existing Union producers manufacturing the like product during the IP constitute the Union industry and they will therefore be hereafter referred to as the "Union industry".3.Union consumption(96)Union consumption was established on the basis of the sales volume of the Union industry on the Union market, and the import volume reported by Eurostat, as adjusted by the findings of the investigation.(97)Union consumption significantly decreased by 21 % between 2008 and 2009, subsequently increasing by 12 percentage points to a level 9 % below the consumption at the beginning of the period considered.

Source:Complaint data, Eurostat and questionnaire replies.

Union consumption (tonnes)
	2008	2009	2010	IP
Union consumption	72231	57398	59190	65460
Index	100	79	82	91

4.Imports from the countries concerned4.1.Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports from the countries concerned(98)The Commission examined whether imports of threaded malleable fittings originating in the countries concerned should be assessed cumulatively in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation.(99)The margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from each of the countries concerned was above the de minimis threshold as defined in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation (see recitals (74), (90) and (93) above).(100)With regard to the volumes of the dumped imports from Indonesia, it was found that they constituted only around 2,5 % of all imports of the like product to the Union during the IP. Therefore, they can be considered as not constituting a cause of material injury to the Union industry in the sense of Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation or the provisions of the WTO Anti-Dumping AgreementSee Commission Decision 98/175/EC of 3 March 1998, OJ L 63 of 4.3.1998, p. 32, recital 2..(101)At the same time the investigation established at this provisional stage that the majority of imports from Indonesia may well have been improperly declared under a different CN code, namely 73079910 instead of 73071910 that is normally relevant for threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron. However, all or at least a large part of those possibly misdeclared imports are already included in the figure of 2,5 % mentioned in the previous recital.(102)In the light of the above, it was provisionally decided not to cumulate those imports with the dumped imports from Thailand and the PRC.(103)With regard to the volumes of the dumped imports from Thailand and the PRC, they cannot be considered negligible as their market share attain 5,4 % and 47,3 %, respectively, in the IP.(104)The cumulative assessment was provisionally considered appropriate in view of the comparable conditions of competition between the imports from these two countries and the like Union product, i.e. through the same sales channels and to the same categories of customers. Indeed, in a number of cases it was shown that the imported products from the PRC and Thailand were sold via the same distributors.(105)In the light of the above, it was provisionally considered that all the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation were met. The imports from Thailand and the PRC were therefore examined cumulatively. They are hereby referred to as "imports from the two countries concerned".4.2.Volume and market share of the imports from the two countries concerned(106)The volume of imports of the product concerned from the two countries concerned into the Union market has increased by 15 % over the period considered. While imports initially decreased by 16 % between 2008 and 2009 due to the decrease in consumption mentioned in recital (97) above, they substantially increased by 31 percentage points subsequently until the IP.

Source:Eurostat and findings of the investigation.

Union import volume (tonnes)
	2008	2009	2010	IP
PRC	26188	22413	22065	30786
Index	100	86	84	118
Thailand	3723	2681	3331	3485
Index	100	72	89	94
Two countries concerned	29911	25094	25396	34271
Index	100	84	85	115

(107)The market share of dumped imports from the two countries concerned has increased by 11 percentage points from 41,7 % to 52,7 % during the period considered. This market share growth mainly took place between 2010 and the IP, during a period of recovering demand.

Source:Complaint data, Eurostat and questionnaire replies.

Union market share
	2008	2009	2010	IP
PRC	36,5 %	39,3 %	37,7 %	47,3 %
Index	100	108	103	129
Thailand	5,2 %	4,7 %	5,7 %	5,4 %
Index	100	91	110	103
Two countries concerned	41,7 %	44,0 %	43,4 %	52,7 %
Index	100	106	104	126

4.3.Prices of the imports from the two countries concerned and price undercutting(a)Price evolution(108)The table below shows the average price of dumped imports from the two countries concerned, at the Union frontier duty unpaid, as reported by Eurostat. During the period considered the average price of imports from the two countries concerned continuously increased by a total of 14 %.

Source:Eurostat.

Import prices (EUR/tonne)
	2008	2009	2010	IP
PRC	1428	1557	1631	1676
Index	100	109	114	117
Thailand	2126	2208	2036	2148
Index	100	104	96	101
Two countries concerned	1515	1626	1679	1721
Index	100	107	111	114

(b)Price undercutting(109)A type-to-type price comparison was made between the selling prices of the exporting producers and the sampled Union producers’ selling prices in the Union. To this end, the sampled Union producers’ prices to unrelated customers have been compared with the prices of sampled exporting producers of the two countries concerned. Adjustments were applied where necessary to take account of differences in the level of trade (notably OEM sales) and post-importation costs.(110)The comparison showed that, during the IP, imports of the product concerned originating in Thailand and the PRC were sold in the Union at prices which undercut the Union industry prices, when expressed as a percentage of the latter, by 25 % to 55 %.5.Situation of the Union industry(111)In accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic factors having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered. The data presented below relate to all Union producers for production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, sales and market shares, and to the sampled Union producers for all the remaining indicators. As concerns the indicators based on the sampled producers, given that the sample was comprised of only two groups of producers, for confidentiality reasons the actual aggregate data could not be disclosed in the related tables below; instead, only the indices are presented in order to show the trend of those indicators.5.1.Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation(112)The Union production volumes sharply fell between 2008 and 2009 by 39 %, and subsequently slightly decreased from the already low level despite a 12 percentage point increase in consumption in the following years, as indicated in recital (97) above.

Source:Complaint data and questionnaire replies.

Union production volume (tonnes)
All producers	2008	2009	2010	IP
Union consumption	55726	33780	32303	32646
Index	100	61	58	59

(113)The production capacity of the Union industry decreased by 21 % during the period considered, mainly between 2008 and 2009. The main reason for the reduction of the production capacity was the shutdown of three Union producers during the period considered.

Source:Complaint data and questionnaire replies.

Union production capacity (tonnes)
All producers	2008	2009	2010	IP
Production capacity	90400	75440	71440	71440
Index	100	83	79	79

(114)Despite the decrease in production capacity, the capacity utilisation of the Union industry decreased by 26 %, mainly between 2008 and 2009.

Source:Complaint data and questionnaire replies.

Union production capacity utilisation
All producers	2008	2009	2010	IP
Production capacity utilisation	62 %	45 %	45 %	46 %
Index	100	73	73	74

5.2.Stocks(115)The volume of stocks decreased by 23 % during the period considered, in line with the decreasing sales and production volumes of the Union industry.

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1071/2012 of 14 November 2012 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand

Corrected by