The definitive Regulation gives the possibility to new Chinese exporting producers to be granted the same treatment as the cooperating companies in the original investigation, on the condition that these producers have been granted the new exporting producer treatment (NEPT) in accordance with Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1212/2005.

It is recalled that all four exporting producers received individual treatment (IT) during the NEPT investigation.

Two of the four above-mentioned exporting producers granted NEPT (XianXian and Weifang) submitted together with the CCCME formal offers to join the joint liability undertaking accepted by the Commission.

After the initiation of the partial interim review of the measures, yet another exporting producer granted NEPT, HanDan, submitted within the deadline, together with the CCCME a formal offer to join the joint liability undertaking accepted by the Commission.

Another exporting producer granted NEPT, Norlong, submitted that it does not wish to adhere to the joint undertaking accepted by the Commission, but offered, within the deadline, a separate undertaking.

On 15 December 2009, the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to accept the offers to join the joint price undertaking submitted by CCCME and HanDan, by CCCME and XianXian and by CCCME and Weifang and to reject the undertaking offered by Norlong were disclosed to interested parties. They were given the opportunity to comment. Their comments have been assessed before taking a final decision.

With regard to the undertaking offer submitted by CCCME together with Handan, XianXian and Weifang, it is noted that they are identical to the collective undertaking offer accepted by Decision 2006/109/EC and thus the CCCME and the three exporting producers undertake to ensure that the product concerned is exported at or above a minimum import price (MIP) set at a level that eliminates the injurious effect of dumping. It is recalled that the undertaking includes the indexation of the minimum import price of the product concerned in accordance with public international quotations for its main raw material, i.e. pig iron, given that casting prices vary significantly depending on the prices of pig iron.

In addition, a further investigation showed that there are no company specific reasons that would call for a refusal of the offer submitted by CCCME together with HanDan, XianXian and Weifang. In view of the foregoing, and as the companies received an individual duty rate, the Commission considers that it can accept the undertaking offer made by CCCME and the exporting producers.

Moreover, the regular and detailed reports which the CCCME and the companies undertake to provide to the Commission will allow effective monitoring. It is, therefore, considered that the risk of circumventing the undertaking is limited.

With regard to the separate undertaking offered by Norlong, it should be recalled that the original undertaking accepted by Decision 2006/109/EC was a joint liability undertaking of 20 companies together with the CCCME. The fact that it was offered as a joint undertaking contributed in a decisive manner to its acceptability by the Commission given that it increased the practicability and improved the control of the respect of the obligations deriving from the undertaking, all of this being necessary in view of the great number of exporting producers involved.

In the case of the undertaking accepted by Decision 2006/109/EC, the specificity of the situation, i.e. the great number of companies which exceeds 20, requires a particular set-up for a special control and monitoring. Norlong did not bring forward any relevant argument suggesting that it was in a different situation as the other companies part of the joint undertaking or justifying that the Commission should treat Norlong in a different way than the other companies that are part to the joint undertaking. Moreover, Norlong’s offer would imply a duplication of efforts of the Commission’s control and monitoring system. Since it would not be practicable and cost-effective for the Commission to control the respect of the obligations deriving from Norlong’s individual undertaking offer, the Commission considers that it cannot accept the separate undertaking offer made by Norlong.

The Union industry objected to the undertaking offer submitted by CCCME together with HanDan, XianXian and Weifang, arguing that the MIP would be too low to protect the European industry from the effect of dumped imports and that the Union industry is suffering further injury. As regards the level of the MIP, it should be noted that anti-dumping duties were imposed at the level of the dumping margins found which were lower than the injury margins. Therefore, the MIP was also set on the normal value and thus eliminates merely the dumping established, in conformity with the principle of the lesser duty rule set out in Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation.

In view of the above, none of the reasons put forward by the Union industry could alter the conclusion that the undertaking offer submitted by CCCME together with HanDan, Weifang and XianXian should be accepted.

To further ensure the respect of the undertaking, importers have been made aware by Regulation (EC) No 268/2006 that the non-fulfilment of the conditions provided for by that Regulation, or the withdrawal by the Commission of the acceptance of the undertaking, may lead to a customs debt being incurred for the relevant transactions.

In the event of a breach or withdrawal of the undertaking or in case of withdrawal of acceptance of the undertaking by the Commission, the anti-dumping duty imposed in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation shall automatically apply pursuant to Article 8(9) of the basic Regulation.

In view of the above, the undertaking offered by Norlong should be rejected. The offer submitted by CCCME and HanDan, by CCCME and XianXian and by CCCME and Weifang to join the joint price undertaking as accepted by Decision 2006/109/EC should be accepted, and Article 1 of Decision 2006/109/EC should be amended accordingly,