The product concerned by the possible circumvention is certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof, originating in the People’s Republic of China, currently falling within CN codes 7318 12 10, 7318 14 10, 7318 15 30, 7318 15 51, 7318 15 61 and 7318 15 70 (‘the product concerned’).

The product under investigation is the same as that defined in the previous recital, but consigned from Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines or not, currently falling within the same CN codes as the product concerned. (‘the product under investigation’).

The Commission has at its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence that the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the People’s Republic of China are being circumvented by means of the transhipment via Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines.

The prima facie evidence at the Commission’s disposal is as follows:

There is a significant change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the People’s Republic of China, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines to the Union which has taken place following the imposition of measures on the product concerned, without sufficient due cause or justification for such change other than the imposition of the duty.

This change in the pattern of trade appears to stem from the transhipment of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the People’s Republic of China via Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines.

Furthermore, the evidence points to the fact that the remedial effects of the existing anti-dumping measures on the product concerned are being undermined both in terms of quantity and price. Significant volumes of imports of the product under investigation appear to have replaced imports of the product concerned. In addition, there is sufficient evidence that imports of the product under investigation are made at prices well below the non-injurious price established in the investigation that led to the existing measures, adjusted for the increase in the costs of the raw material.

Finally, the Commission has sufficient prima facie evidence that the prices of the product under investigation are dumped in relation to the normal value previously established for the product concerned, adjusted for the increase in the costs of the raw material.

Should circumvention practices via Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines covered by Article 13 of the basic Regulation, other than transhipment, be identified in the course of the investigation, the investigation may also cover these practices.

In light of the above, the Commission has concluded that sufficient evidence exists to justify the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation and to make imports of the product under investigation, whether declared as originating in Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines or not, subject to registration, in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.

Pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product under investigation should be made subject to registration in order to ensure that, should the investigation result in findings of circumvention, anti-dumping duties of an appropriate amount can be levied retroactively from the date of registration of such imports consigned from Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines.

• interested parties may make themselves known to the Commission, present their views in writing and submit questionnaire replies or any other information to be taken into account during the investigation,

• producers in Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines may request exemption from registration of imports or measures,

• interested parties may make a written request to be heard by the Commission.

Attention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the party’s making itself known within the time limits mentioned in Article 3 of this Regulation.

In cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.

Where it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made of facts available.

If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on the facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.

The investigation will be concluded, according to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation, within nine months of the date of the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It is also noted that if interested parties consider that they are encountering difficulties in the exercise of their rights of defence, they may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer of Directorate-General for Trade. He acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission services, offering, where necessary, mediation on procedural matters affecting the protection of their interests in this proceeding, in particular with regard to issues concerning access to the file, confidentiality, extension of time limits and the treatment of written and/or oral submission of views. For further information and contact details, interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer’s web pages on the website of Directorate-General for Trade (http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/hearing-officer/index_en.htm),