As stated in recital 10 above, only three Filipino companies (one of them later found not to be a producer or exporter of the product under investigation) submitted an exemption form reply. Thus, the cooperating companies were representing 10 % of the Filipino exports of the product under investigation to the Union in the RP.

A questionnaire reply was also submitted by two Chinese producers/exporters; however, none of them was involved in export to the Philippines in the IP.

Taking into account the relatively low level of cooperation of the Filipino and Chinese companies the findings in respect of imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof from the Philippines into the Union and exports of the product concerned from the PRC to the Philippines had to be made on the basis of facts available in accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation. In this case Eurostat data was used to determine overall import volumes from the Philippines to the Union and Chinese export statistics were used for the determination of the overall exports from the PRC to the Philippines.

With regard to the Chinese export statistics it should be noted that statistics of trade flows between the PRC and the Philippines cover whole HS codes that is a larger product group then the product concerned and the product under investigation. However, taking into account the very clear trend that existed, these data can be used to establish a change in pattern of trade.

Finally, as an additional source of information the data provided by the Filipino authorities were used. Although these data were not complete and detailed enough to be a sole basis for the analysis they were suitable to cross-check findings with regard to the pattern of trade.

The data clearly show that imports from the Philippines into the Union were negligible in 2004 and 2005. However, in 2006, following the imposition of the measures on the PRC, the imports surged suddenly and partly replaced the exports from the PRC to the Union market in terms of volume. Moreover, since the imposition of the measures in force, the decrease of the exports from the PRC to the Union has been significant (70 %). Furthermore, it is noted that the data received from the Filipino authorities confirm that only a small percentage of imports from the PRC was released for trade in the Filipino custom territory. Most of the import was directed to the special economic zones.

Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation requires that the change in the pattern of trade stems from a practice, process or work for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty. The practice, process or work includes, inter alia, the consignment of the product subject to measures via third countries.

It is noted that Filipino exports of the cooperating companies amounted to some 10 % of the total Filipino exports to the Union in the RP. The remaining exports can be attributed to the producers that have not cooperated with the investigation or by pure transhipment practises. The latter conclusion is supported by the information and data provided by the Filipino authorities, in particular the facts that: (i) most of the imports from the PRC of the product concerned was directed to special economic zones and did not enter the Filipino custom territories; (ii) the number of genuine producers of the product under investigation in the Philippines is very limited.

The existence of transhipment of Chinese-origin products via the Philippines was therefore confirmed.

The investigation did not bring to light any other due cause or economic justification for the transhipment than the avoidance of the measures in force on the product concerned. No elements were found, other than the duty, which could be considered as a compensation for the costs of transhipment, in particular regarding transport and reloading, of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the PRC via the Philippines.

To assess whether the imported product under investigation had, in terms of quantities and prices, undermined the remedial effects of the measures in force on imports of the product concerned, Eurostat data was used as the best data available concerning quantities and prices of exports by the non-cooperating companies in the Philippines. The prices so determined were compared to the injury elimination level established for Union producers in the original investigation. Given the substantial time difference between the original IP and the RP in the present investigation, the significant developments in the basic elements of costs of production had to be taken into account. This was reflected in the adjustment of the non-injurious price on the basis of the increase in the price of the basic raw materials and, for the remaining elements of costs of manufacturing and sales, on the basis of the variation in the consumer price index in the Union.

The increase of imports from the Philippines into the Union from below 100 MT in 2004 to over 12 000 MT in the RP was considered to be significant in terms of quantities.

The comparison of the adjusted injury elimination level and the weighted average export price showed underselling.

It was therefore concluded that the remedial effects of the measures in force are being undermined in terms of both quantities and prices.

Finally, in accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation it was examined whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal value established in the original investigation.

In the original Regulation the normal value was established on the basis of prices in Taiwan, which in that investigation was found to be an appropriate market economy analogue country for the PRC. However, given the substantial time difference between the original IP and the RP in the present investigation, the significant developments in the basic elements of costs of production had to be taken into account. This was reflected in the adjustment of the normal value on the basis of the increase in the price of the basic raw materials and, for the remaining elements of costs of manufacturing and sales, on the basis of the variation in the consumer price index in Taiwan.

The export price from the Philippines was based on facts available, i.e. on the average export price of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof during the RP as reported by Eurostat. The use of facts available was due to the minimal level of cooperation by producers of the product under investigation in the Philippines. The average export price used for the calculation was cross-checked with the level of export prices of the two cooperating Filipino exporters and it appeared to be compatible with them.

For the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance, in the form of adjustments, was made for differences which affect prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Accordingly, adjustments were made for differences in transport, insurance and for non-refundable VAT on export sales in the PRC. Given that there was limited cooperation from the producers in the Philippines and the PRC, the adjustments had to be established on the basis of the best facts available. Thus, the adjustments for transport and insurance were based on per tonne transport and insurance cost established in the original investigation.

In accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, dumping was calculated by comparing adjusted weighted average normal value as established in the original Regulation and the corresponding weighted average export prices of the Filipino import during this investigation’s RP, expressed as a percentage of the CIF price at the Union frontier duty unpaid.

The comparison of the weighted average normal value and the weighted average export price as established showed dumping.

As stated in recital 10 above, seven Malaysian companies submitted exemption form replies. One of these companies appeared not to be the producer of the product under investigation, while the other submitted its incomplete reply in the late stage of the investigation which made it impossible to supplement deficiencies and verify the submitted information and data. Therefore, these two exemption form replies had to be disregarded. Nevertheless, the remaining five cooperating Malaysian companies represented 93 % of the Malaysian exports of the product under investigation to the Union in the RP.

However, it should be stressed that following the verification visits it was confirmed that this increase in Malaysian exports to the Union can be explained by the increase of genuine production in Malaysia over the same period. Cooperating companies, which were found to be Malaysian producers not involved in the circumvention practices, represent 93 % of the export to the Union. The investigation revealed that only one of these companies was transhipping the product concerned but this practice concerned a small part of its sales and ended in 2009. None of the cooperating companies was also found to be involved in the assembling operations where the Chinese-origin parts or semi-products would be used.

Taking into account the above it is concluded that increased imports from Malaysia are justified by increase in the domestic production. Therefore, the change in the pattern of trade between Malaysia and the Union does not result from circumvention practices.

As stated in recital 10 above, six Thai companies submitted exemption form replies. One of these companies failed to cooperate in the further procedure which made it impossible to supplement deficiencies and held on-spot verification of the submitted information and data. Therefore, this exemption form reply was disregarded. Nevertheless, the remaining five cooperating Thai companies represented 67 % of the Thai exports of the product under investigation to the Union in the RP.

Analyses of the exports from Thailand to the Union have to be made against the background of the fact that from November 2005 on Thailand, like the PRC, was subject to the Union anti-dumping measures

OJ L 302, 19.11.2005, p. 1.

However, it should be noted that the Thai exports of the product under investigation to the Union in the RP are in absolute terms not much higher than in 2004 before the anti-dumping measures were imposed on the PRC and Thailand. In relative terms (as a share in total Union imports) imports from Thailand even dropped from almost 12 % to 7 %.

The investigation did not reveal any transhipping or assembling operations where the Chinese-origin parts or semi-products would be used. Taking into account the fact that before the imposition of anti-dumping measures the exports from Thailand were definitely of genuine Thai production, it is difficult to conclude that the current level of export which is similar in volume would have different origin. It should be also stressed that the two biggest Thai producers cooperating in this investigation were also present in the original investigation against Thailand.

Taking into account the above it is concluded that increased imports from Thailand are to a large extent justified by domestic production. Therefore, the change in the pattern of trade between Thailand and the Union does not result from circumvention practices.