It is noted that the additional price information submitted by Since supported the finding that the main raw materials for the production of ironing boards in the first half of the IP were on average significantly cheaper on the Chinese domestic market than on other sizeable world markets.

However, Since Hardware has not pointed to any issue which would indicate that in this investigation the Institutions used a methodology which was different to that used in the first investigation Secondly, even if Since could point to the use of a different methodology, this would be a result of the fact that the WTO Appellate Body report leads to the conclusion that it was incumbent on the Institutions to not investigate the claims against Since Hardware by means of a review.

The main arguments raised by Since were as follows.

The information requested from the Union industry focused on whether Since had been undercutting its prices and on what was the profitability of those prices.

It is also noted that Since used to import its raw materials during the first investigation but switched to Chinese sourcing due to lower prices on the Chinese market.

As regards criterion 1, i.e. that business decisions are made in response to market signals, without significant State interference, and costs reflect market values, it is noted that Since Hardware claimed to have started to purchase its main raw materials (steel products) on the domestic Chinese market, unlike in the investigation period in the first investigation when Since imported these raw materials.

Finally, Since suggested that the Institutions should have investigated the claims against it by means of a review, and then, in case a duty were imposed upon it and the PRC would successfully challenge this in WTO dispute settlement, remove that duty but only prospectively.

In addition, the Union industry has claimed to have lost numerous client orders to Since in the past years.

It is therefore concluded that no factor appears to exist that could break the causal link between the dumped imports from Since and their contribution to injury which was found above.

With regard to the identified accounting issues, Since Hardware claimed that they did not relate to Since ’s accounts and, in any event, did not mean that the company did not fully comply with international accounting standards.

Indeed clear indications have been found that certain important customers of the Union industry have changed suppliers, sourcing more products from Since and fewer from the Union industry than before.

PRC (excluding Since ) and Ukraine

Comments were received from Since and the Union industry.

In this context, the Commission examined i) the development of dumped imports of ironing boards produced by Since ; ii) whether those imports had been made at prices undercutting the sales prices of the Union industry and what was the profitability of the Union industry prices; and iii) any information provided by the Union industry indicating that Since Hardware’s exports to the Union had caused it injury, e.g. concerning the Union industry’s losses of customers and orders to Since Hardware and the profitability of their Union sales during the IP.

In this context, the Commission examined i) the development of dumped imports of ironing boards produced by Since Hardware; ii) whether those imports had been made at prices undercutting the sales prices of the Union industry and what was the profitability of the Union industry prices; and iii) any information provided by the Union industry indicating that Since Hardware’s exports to the Union had caused it injury, e.g. concerning the Union industry’s losses of customers and orders to Since and the profitability of their Union sales during the IP.

In this context, the Commission examined i) the development of dumped imports of ironing boards produced by Since Hardware; ii) whether those imports had been made at prices undercutting the sales prices of the Union industry and what was the profitability of the Union industry prices; and iii) any information provided by the Union industry indicating that Since ’s exports to the Union had caused it injury, e.g. concerning the Union industry’s losses of customers and orders to Since Hardware and the profitability of their Union sales during the IP.

Furthermore, the Union industry was invited to provide any other information that, in its view, indicated that Since ’s exports to the Union had caused it injury.

Over the period considered, Since ’s to the Union increased strongly, by 64 % [9].

This, firstly, means, that Since does not object to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001, which formally excludes Since Hardware from the scope of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 in a manner which makes clear that on the basis of that Regulation no duty will apply to its imports.

In fact, detailed dumping calculations for Since could not be made before the MET determination in the absence of data from an appropriate market economy country.