Jacquey, Author at Metal Logic Ltd

Metalogic Celebrates Global Award

In all businesses people make a difference. As a company Metalogic have always believed that and so invested in their people with the latest training, mentoring and offering a work/life balance. With this in mind it was one of the reasons the company moved to a home-working solution supported by cloud technology in 2010.

Since the acquisition of Metalogic by Constellation Software, the investment in people has increased, evident through the training programmes and the opportunity for employees to attend the Jonas Software University (JSU), in Canada. JSU offers highly focussed courses on all aspects of software development and technologies, first class training and personal development. These courses culminate at the end of a challenging week of teamwork resulting in the presentation of a business plan, with the winner having the plan adopted by the group and the team rewarded with a very nice trophy.

Metalogic have realised some significant results in this respect and been fortunate enough to have had a team member invited to JSU every year since joining the group with firstly John Padbury in 2013, Neil Webb 2014, Geoff Ellis in 2015 and Geoff Kendell attending in 2016. Geoff Kendell lead his team to victory in the business game and the plan they came up with is being developed as a real opportunity right now.

Because technology and software in particular is moving so quickly the team assess their skill requirements via a training needs analysis system which coupled with regular appraisal reviews, allows training needs to be identified and delivered. The desire being to ensure that the Metalogic team member who is looking after a customer’s requirements has all the skills needed to deliver a first class experience.

Let the games begin – tape and cloth go build a superhero!

To recognise the personal commitment that the team members put in, the group has the concept of the award of MVP (Most Valued Player). This is a significant accolade and Metalogic staff members have received this award every year since joining the group. Only a selection of around 12 MVP’s are afforded the opportunity to attend the Jonas President Club out of all MVP’s nominated and Metalogic staff have attended each time – Geoff Kendell, Professional Services Consultant was awarded MVP in 2014. Mark Beard, Business Consultant in 2015 and then this has been further enhanced by Mark again achieving Global MVP in 2016 recognised amongst 6,000 employees worldwide.

L to R: Steve Pinado, Jonas, Mark Beard Metalogic, Barry Symons CEO – Jonas Software

Mark was rewarded with an invitation to attend the awards ceremony at the Jonas Presidents Club 2016 in Las Vegas last month. This prestigious event allowed Mark and his wife Sarah to meet fellow Jonas employees and nominees and take part in team-building exercises and enjoy the delights of the area. It was only when Mark and his wife were seated at the top table during the awards dinner alongside Barry Symons, CEO of Jonas Software, did Mark realise the significance of his award and the recognition not only from his team but globally within the group.

Mandatory Backyard Games Mark as Captain Q4 (Always Finishing Strong!)

Commenting on the award Leigh Harrison, MD, Metalogic ‘This reward not only reflects the personal efforts that Mark has put in but the support he has had from his family and the great team behind and around him at Metalogic. The results of this business are totally attributable to the commitment, teamwork, loyalty and effort of all the individuals that means together we achieve more”

It’s fair to say there were a few tears shed at the ceremony, particularly when a short film was shown highlighting Mark’s contribution opening with words of congratulations from the senior management team. Many congratulations to Mark from all his colleagues at Metalogic.

‘This was one of the most amazing things to happen to me in my career and a great honour for myself and Metalogic.’ Mark Beard, Business

And a final recognition from Barry Symons, CEO Jonas Software ‘Unfortunately Mark will not be joining us on our final evening activities as in true MVP fashion Mark is putting work first attend a go-live on the Monday’.

Metalogic have also recently introduced their own team recognition initiative. The Metalogic Friday Big Up ensures that everyone’s hard work and contributions really are valued and make Metalogic the success that it is even if they are not always recognised. Staff vote each week for fellow colleagues who have gone above and beyond to ensure they keep projects moving and customers happy. With a monthly and quarterly reward and the overall most recognised team member being put forward for MVP and a trip to who knows where.

We hope this article helps you understand how hard the folks at Metalogic are working to stay on top of their game and to provide you with an excellent service. We have recently introduced a customer service survey (if you didn’t receive this please contact us here) and this will be followed up by a quality indicator system on all hotline to allow us to target our efforts into the right areas.

Cybersecurity: The threat from Ransomware and how to reduce the risk

Computer viruses, trojans and worms have been around for as long as computers have been in common use, and since the Internet became ubiquitous they have increased steadily. In the beginning computer viruses were a nuisance, causing problems on the infected PC. The authors of the viruses were mostly looking to cause problems and make a name for their virus, but in recent years the authors have been looking at ways to make money from their viruses and trojans.

Initially the focus was on sending spam, or stealing online passwords from infected computers but a new even more troubling type of trojan has appeared which encrypts every data file it can see on the network with high grade encryption and then charges the victim for the decryption keys to recover their data.

This new form of trojan is called Ransomware. Since many victims find themselves without adequate backups for their data they have been forced to pay the criminals for the keys to recover their data, this makes ransomware potentially an extremely profitable business for criminals.

Most ransomware comes in the form of an email attachment, which could be an executable file, or a Microsoft Word or Excel document with macros, the initial virus downloads the ransomware payload, installs it, creates an encryption key and sends a copy to the criminals. Then it runs and encrypts every data file it can see before alerting the user to the ransomware and telling them how to pay the ransom. The ransomes vary between a few hundred pounds and tens of thousands of pounds and generally the payment method is Bitcoin which is a secure anonymous payment method that is very difficult to track back to the criminals. Many people who have paid the ransom have not received the decryption key, or the key they have received does not work.

All of the examples we have been able to find in antivirus / antispam systems we maintain have been targeted at Microsoft Windows and / or Microsoft Office macros and scripts. Since iMetal, Stockmaster and all of the other application written by Metalogic run on the Linux Operating System, our customers do not currently need to worry about those servers becoming infected, although network shares open to PC would still be vulnerable to an infected PC.

What can be done to protect from Ransomware

Take regular verified backups of data. Backups are critical in ransomware incidents. If all of your data files get encrypted and you have backups, you just need to restore them.
Secure your backups. Ensure that backups are not accessible to PCs e.g. over the network, and take backups off site. If an infected PC or server can see the backups when the trojan runs then it can encrypt them.
Make sure that all PCs have antivirus installed and that it is kept up to date. Ensure that full PC scans are regularly run, and that users report any errors or warnings related to antivirus software, or when opening email attachments.
Make sure that all PCs have patches and updates installed as they are released from Microsoft, most viruses and trojans rely on known vulnerabilities in Windows to infect the computer. Also ensure that other applications such as Microsoft Office, Flash, Java, are updated where possible.
Block executable email attachments and document types that include macros such as .docm and ensure that anyone who may need to send you documents sends them in a form that does not include macros.
Ensure that macros are disabled in all Office products and that users do not enable macros unless it is essential to do so. Microsoft provide free Office document viewers which can be used to view office documents, these do not support macros.
Make sure that users are aware never to open an email attachment unless it is from a known source and they are expecting it. Make sure that users know never to enable macros to view a document sent to them unless it is essential to do so. Some Ransomware documents show the steps necessary to enable macros when opened, and uneducated users may follow those steps. Regularly remind users never to open email attachments from unknown sources and never to enable macros to view documents from emails.
Restrict access to files on the network as much as possible, ransomware only infects the files the PC can see, and those we have examined only infect active shares the PC has. If users do not need access to data files then do not allow them access.
Restrict access to the Internet. If users do not need access to the Internet then do not allow it, or if only a number of sites are required allow only those sites on the PC. Consider installing a PC running a non Microsoft Operating System for surfing the net.

While it is never possible to entirely eliminate the threat from viruses and trojans, it is possible to ensure that the business is not threatened should you become a victim of an attack.

Read more on Ransomware and risk reduction here.

Hackers, Threats and Cyber Defence

Although the shortest month of the year, February has not been short of breaches or cyber attacks.

We bring you a list of the latest data breaches from IT Governance which contain the usual mix of ransomware attacks and careless employees causing data breaches.

While it is never possible to entirely eliminate the threat from attacks, viruses and trojans, it is possible to ensure that your business is not threatened should you become a victim of an attack.

Read more here from Metalogic Ltd on how you and your organisation can be vigilant against breaches.

For a more in-depth look at Cyber Defence you may want to view the forthcoming summits from Bright Talk.

Hackers, Threats and Cyber Defence

Cybercriminals have refined their attacks to increase frequency, efficiency and profits. Cybercrime costs will reach $6 trillion per year globally by 2021, up from $3 trillion in 2015. Every industry and government is at risk, highlighting the need for stronger cyber defense. Bright Talk brings you a range of Summits from 14th – 16th March. Listen to top experts across the industry and government as they discuss the latest attack trends, the most valuable assets at risk, and the defenses needed to secure them.

View the full summit lineup here

February 2017 Cyber attacks

Gov, OMES Confirm Agency Hacked, No Ransom Paid

Hackers demand $25k-$30k after ransomware attack takes down Bingham county servers

Yahoo tells users they were hit with cookie attack

University suffers cyber attack from its own vending machines and lamp posts

Isis-linked hackers attack NHS websites to show gruesome Syrian civil war images

Pro-Trump group hacked, website taken down in Cabinet fight

Hackers demand £1 million from David Beckham’s advisers

Norway’s Labour Party was hacked by Russia: report

Ransom demanded in Licking County technology hack

Tiverton town hall has two years’ worth of documents deleted by virus that demanded £3,000 ransom

What do the latest WSA statistics mean for steel prices?

The World Steel Association (WSA) released statistics yesterday showing steel production accelerated in January. But what does this tell us about demand, and ultimately, prices?

Read our analysis below to better understand these figures and get a balanced, independent outlook for the steel market.

WSA’s latest data updates a mixed bag

The revival in global steel consumption that began in the second half of last year continues to gather speed, though the January gains recorded here are somewhat inflated by a terrible start to 2016.

The particularly large gains in China are also partly misleading, in that they reflect a surge in stock building, not only among re-sellers in China, which is greater even than normal at this time of year, but also among mills.

At the same time, the rest of the world’s muted growth, of just over 2% year-on-year, shows that demand in January was still well below demand at the same time in 2015, the worst year for steel producers since the GFC.

How does this affect the price outlook?

Bullish view:
The bulls in Metal Bulletin Research see the restocking within China, which has been accelerating so far in February, as long overdue and are supported by the fact that prices are rising amid the restocking phase, which is also apparent in iron ore.

Bearish view:
The bears, who tend to associate rising stocks with falling prices, based on a reasonable history prior to last year, see the current stockbuild as a sign that a crash in prices is imminent.

Metal Bulletin Research view:
What we know for sure is that if the Chinese can continue to concentrate on their own reviving demand, then prices in the rest of the world are bound to take care of themselves.

We’ll know better what to expect in China next month: a large inventory fall will be a sign that underlying demand is as good as suppliers currently hope but a further build, an increasing bearish sign that suppliers have been far too optimistic.

More detailed analysis and price forecasts by product and month are available from the Steel Forecaster, a weekly service from Metal Bulletin Research

Steel Supplies MD Steps Up To The Plate again!

Metalogic Staff and Customers attending the recent NEASS Annual Dinner in Harrogate were surprised to learn that following the completion of the tenure of Richard Smith of Sebden Steel, Howard Todd the Managing Director of Steel Supplies, Doncaster had been nominated – and accepted the Chairmanship of the Association.

The surprise was the fact that only a few years ago Mr Todd had previously held this esteemed position of this established association which provides industry information, networking opportunities and a social fellowship to all the stockholder distributors in the North East.

Howard is the driving force behind his business and yet still finds the time not only to continue to develop opportunities within Steel Supplies but also to supply guidance and leadership to this fast growing organisation.

Speaking after the event Howard shared with us his thoughts on NEASS, the industry and the hopes for his Chairmanship.

“It was fantastic to see such a large attendance at the NEASS annual dinner in Harrogate on the 3rd February and I am so pleased to be taking over as Chairman for the next two years when the association is in such a healthy position.

For quite a few years now steel stockholding nationwide seems to have suffered from a lack of young people wanting join the industry, I guess that following the crash in 2008 and the resulting cut backs together with the less than flattering image given to the steel industry in the media it did not seem such an attractive career choice for many. Things look like they are changing now and I was delighted to see so many younger faces in attendance at the dinner. During my tenure I hope to encourage more younger people to become involved in the meetings and events NEASS hold. I am sure they will benefit from the wealth of experience in the association and have a great time taking part.

Although NEASS already has a healthy number of members one of my main aims as chairman will be to increase the number of steel stockholders attending the meetings and taking an active role, this will ensure that the association always remains relevant to the industry and a useful source of information and reference for all involved. If you want any information about joining NEASS or on any of the meetings and events we hold please contact Cathy Ellis at [email protected]

Finally I would like to thank Metalogic for their generous support of NEASS in the past and in anticipation of their continued support in the future.”

The next NEASS meeting is the AGM is on Wednesday 29th March 2017 at the Thorpe Park Hotel in Leeds when Howard will take over as Chairman and Metalogic will be among many wishing him continued success as he returns to the role.

A fantastic £2510 was raised on the night for the children’s charities Martin House Children’s Hospice and Candlelighters and the evening also saw the announcement of the first winner of the Neass Outstanding Contribution Award to Fred Radford in acknowledgement of his retirement later this year. A successful event all round where Metalogic staff and customers enjoyed meeting both suppliers, competitors and partners late into the evening.

Left to right: Simon Ollershaw Masteel, Steve Morris Bright Steels, Geoff Ellis Metalogic, Paul Stead Bright Steels, Geoff Kendell Metalogic. Background: Stephen Fleming former NEASS Secretary.

ISTA Announces Re-election of President at AGM

Following their recent AGM on 2nd February 2017 ISTA are pleased to announce the re-election of Tony Singer as President who will take up the post for another year. Tony Singer started his career in steel trading in 1961 in London with Henry Gardner & Co Ltd working in their steel stockholding and steel re-inforcing divisions and export department before being appointed Manager of their New York steel trading department in 1967. Following an extensive career with the Primary Industries Corporation trading group in London, Mr Singer became a Steel Marketing Consultant trading and has been President of The International Steel Trade Association (ISTA) since 2008.

Simone Jordan (Ronly Ltd) was elected as Chairwoman in succession to Jeff Kabel, who had served as Chairman for three years and Deputy Chairman is to be Brian Paterson (Duferco UK Ltd).

The meeting also acknowledged the contribution of Richard Adams (CMC UK Ltd) who was standing down, members voiced their appreciation to him for his services as a Committee member. Members also expressed their gratitude to Mr Mel Wilde for his service to ISTA, who had ceased to be a Committee member during the year following his departure from Gerald (UK) Ltd.

European Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/5

Implementing Regulation from the European Commission making imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Russia and Brazil subject to registration.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (¹) (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 14(5) thereof, After informing the Member States,

Whereas:

(1) On 7 July 2016, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (²), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain hot- rolled flat steel products originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine following a complaint lodged on 23 May 2016 by EUROFER (‘the complainant’) on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production of certain hot-rolled flat steel products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel.

1. PRODUCT CONCERNED

The product subject to registration (‘the product concerned’) is certain flat-rolled products of iron, non-alloy steel or other alloy steel, whether or not in coils (including ‘cut-to-length’ and ‘narrow strip’ products), not further worked than hot-rolled, not clad, plated or coated, originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine (‘the countries concerned’).
The product concerned does not include:

— products of stainless steel and grain-oriented silicon electrical steel,

— products, not in coils, without patterns in relief, of a thickness exceeding 10 mm and of a width of 600 mm or more,

— and products, not in coils, without patterns in relief, of a thickness of 4,75 mm or more but not exceeding 10 mm and of a width of 2 050 mm or more.

The product concerned is currently falling within CN codes 7208 10 00, 7208 25 00, 7208 26 00,

7208 27 00, 7208 36 00, 7208 37 00, 7208 38 00, 7208 39 00, 7208 40 00, 7208 52 10, 7208 52 99,

7208 53 10, 7208 53 90, 7208 54 00, 7211 13 00, 7211 14 00, 7211 19 00, ex 7225 19 10, 7225 30 10, 7225 30 30, 7225 30 90, ex 7225 40 12, ex 7225 40 15, ex 7225 40 60, 7225 40 90, ex 7226 19 10, ex 7226 20 00, 7226 91 20, 7226 91 91 and 7226 91 99. These CN codes are given for information only.

OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.
Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine (OJ C 246, 7.7.2016, p. 7).

L 3/2 6.1.2017

2. REQUEST

On 11 October 2016, the complainant submitted a request for registration of imports of the product concerned originating in the countries concerned. On 21 November 2016, the complainant updated the request by providing more recent financial data. The complainant requested that imports of the product concerned from the countries concerned are made subject to registration so that measures may subsequently be applied against those imports from the date of such registration.
Following this request, four interested parties came forward, alleging that the initial request for registration from the complainant did not contain sufficient evidence to justify the registration of imports of the product concerned from respectively Iran (³), Russia (⁴), Serbia (⁵) and Ukraine (⁶).

3. GROUNDS FOR THE REGISTRATION

According to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission may direct the customs authorities to take the appropriate steps to register imports, so that measures may subsequently be applied against those imports. Imports may be made subject to registration following a request from the Union industry, which contains sufficient evidence to justify such action.
The complainant claimed that importers were well aware of dumping practices which stretched over an extended period of time and were causing injury to the Union industry. Imports from the countries concerned were causing injury to the Union industry and there was a substantial increase in the level of these imports, even following the investigation period. This would seriously undermine the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duty, if such a duty is to be applied.
The Commission examined the request in the light of Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation. In particular, it verified whether the importers were aware of, or should have been aware of, the dumping as regards the extent of the dumping and the injury alleged or found. It also analysed whether there was a further substantial rise in imports which, in the light of its timing and volume and other circumstances, is likely to seriously undermine the remedial effect of the definitive anti-dumping duty to be applied.

3.1. Awareness of the importers of the dumping, the extent thereof and the alleged injury

The EUROFER complaint of 23 May 2016 contained sufficient prima facie evidence on alleged dumping from the five countries concerned. The non-confidential version of the complaint estimated dumping margins to exceed at least 20 % for the five countries concerned. For four (Brazil, Iran, Russia and Ukraine) out of the five countries concerned, the complainant provided in the complaint evidence on the normal value based on the pricing information of either Steel First or other market reports. For the one remaining country concerned (Serbia), the complainant provided evidence on a constructed normal value (estimated manufacturing costs, SG&A and profit). The evidence of dumping is based on a comparison of the normal values thus established with the export price (at ex-works level) of the product concerned when sold for export to the Union. The export prices for the countries concerned were determined on the basis of either information from Steel First or established using Eurostat data. The complaint also provided prima facie evidence of alleged injury.
These points were spelled out in the notice of initiation for this proceeding on 7 July 2016 (⁷). As this notice is a public document accessible to all importers the Commission considered that the importers were aware, or should have been aware of the alleged dumping practices, the extent thereof and the alleged injury at the latest at that moment. It thus concluded that the first criterion for registration was met.
Submission of 9 November 2016 by Mobarakeh Steel Company.
Submission of 10 November 2016 by MMK Group and Severstal Group.
Submission of 28 October 2016 by Zelezara Smederevo d.o.o.
Submission of 5 December 2016 by Metinvest Group.
Section 3 of the notice of initiation (see footnote 2).

3.2. Further substantial rise in imports

In its updated request for registration, the complainant compared the aggregate average monthly volume of imports of the product concerned from all countries concerned in the period 1 July 2015-30 June 2016 with the period from 1 July 2016-31 October 2016. This comparison showed an increase of 24 % in average monthly import volume from the five countries concerned.
The Commission considered that it was inappropriate to use data from the month of July 2016. As explained in recital 12, the importers should have been aware of alleged dumping and injury only as of 7 July. Taking data prior to that date cannot be conclusive for a registration exercise. Given that import statistics are done on a monthly basis, the Commission thus decided to compare the average volumes of imports from the countries concerned during the period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016 with the period of 1 August 2016 to 30 November 2016 (i.e. 4 months following the initiation on 7 July 2016).
For that period, the Commission observed a substantial increase of 14 % for the countries concerned when comparing the total average monthly volume of imports. However, at the same time, the Commission noted significant differences between the five country’s individual export performances, highlighted in the different submissions referred to in recital 6.
In particular, the increase of 14 % of total monthly average volumes of imports for the five countries concerned for the period as mentioned under recital 13 was the combined effect of a substantial rise in Russian imports (+ 73 %) and in Brazilian imports (+ 26 %), a decrease in imports from two other countries concerned (Ukraine and Iran) and a status quo for Serbia in imports of the product concerned.
Hence, the increase in volume of the dumped imports from the five countries concerned is fully attributable to the substantial increase in volumes of the Russian and Brazilian imports only. Under these exceptional circumstances, the Commission saw no reason to register imports for the other three countries as well. Even if the Commission was to conduct a cumulative assessment of injury from all five countries under Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation in the main investigation, a retroactive imposition of duties for imports from countries where exports have stagnated or even decreased after the initiation of the case would seem to be disproportionate. Hence, the Commission concluded that registration for such imports was not necessary either.

3.3. Other circumstances

In its complaint of 23 May 2016, the complainant had included prima facie evidence on the decreasing trend of the import sales prices for the countries concerned. The average sales prices to the Union decreased between 2011 and 2015, undercutting as such the average sales prices of the Union steel producers by 30 % at least. As a whole, and given the extent of the dumping margins alleged in the complaint, the evidence provided sufficient support at this stage that the exporters from the countries concerned practise dumping. However, in its registration request of 11 October 2016, the complainant did not include any updated information on import prices following the initiation of the present investigation.
The Commission considered that the price evolution after the initiation of the case constitutes another relevant circumstance for a registration request. Therefore, it analysed import prices on the basis of figures in Eurostat. It established that the import prices of the countries concerned went up to a certain degree following the initiation of the present investigation.
Assessing this rising trend of import prices from Russia and Brazil, the Commission found that the absolute level of those prices remained still at a critically low level. In particular, it was lower than the costs of production of the Union industry at the end of 2015, as established by the Commission in the parallel HRF case on China (⁸). Under these circumstances, the Commission concluded that registration of imports from those two countries is warranted.

(⁸) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1778 of 6 October 2016 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 272, 7.10.2016, p. 33) (Table at recital 104).

L 3/4 6.1.2017

3.4. Conclusion

(20) In conclusion, the increase in volume of the dumped imports from the five countries concerned is fully attributable to the substantial increase in volumes of the Russian and Brazilian imports. In light of the timing, this substantial increase in the level of these Russian and Brazilian imports is likely to seriously undermine the remedial effect of any definitive duties, unless such duties would be applied retroactively.

4. PROCEDURE

In view of the above, the Commission concluded that there is sufficient prima facie evidence to justify making Russian and Brazilian imports of the product concerned subject to registration in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.
All interested parties are invited to make their views known in writing and to provide supporting evidence. Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request in writing and show that there are particular reasons why they should be heard.

5. REGISTRATION

Pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation Russian and Brazilian imports of the product concerned should be made subject to registration for the purpose of ensuring that, should the investigation result in findings leading to the imposition of anti-dumping duties, those duties can, if the necessary conditions are fulfilled, be levied retroactively on the registered Russian and Brazilian imports in accordance with Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation.
The complainant estimated in the complaint an average dumping margin of 20-40 % for Russia and an average dumping margin of 40-70 % for Brazil. It also estimated an average underselling margin of 20-50 % for both Russia and Brazil for the product concerned. The estimated amount of possible future liability is set for Russia and Brazil at the level of the average dumping margin estimated on the basis of the complaint, i.e. 20-50 % ad valorem on the CIF import value of the product concerned.

6. PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA

(25) Any personal data collected in the context of this registration will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC)

No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (⁹),

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Customs authorities are hereby directed, pursuant to Article 14(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036, to take the appropriate steps to register the imports into the Union of certain flat-rolled products of iron, non-alloy steel or other alloy steel, whether or not in coils (including ‘cut-to-length’ and ‘narrow strip’ products), not further worked than hot- rolled, not clad, plated or coated, originating in Brazil and Russia.

(⁹) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1).

The product concerned does not include:

— products of stainless steel and grain-oriented silicon electrical steel,

— products, not in coils, without patterns in relief, of a thickness exceeding 10 mm and of a width of 600 mm or more,

— and products, not in coils, without patterns in relief, of a thickness of 4,75 mm or more but not exceeding 10 mm and of a width of 2 050 mm or more.

The product concerned currently falls within CN codes 7208 10 00, 7208 25 00, 7208 26 00, 7208 27 00,

7208 36 00, 7208 37 00, 7208 38 00, 7208 39 00, 7208 40 00, 7208 52 10, 7208 52 99, 7208 53 10,

7208 53 90, 7208 54 00, 7211 13 00, 7211 14 00, 7211 19 00, ex 7225 19 10, 7225 30 10, 7225 30 30,

7225 30 90, ex 7225 40 12, ex 7225 40 15, ex 7225 40 60, 7225 40 90, ex 7226 19 10, ex 7226 20 00, 7226 91 20, 7226 91 91 and 7226 91 99 (TARIC codes: 7225 19 10 90, 7225 40 12 95, 7225 40 15 95, 7225 40 60 90, 7226 19 10 90, 7226 20 00 95).

Registration shall expire 9 months following the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
All interested parties are invited to make their views known in writing, to provide supporting evidence or to request to be heard within 20 days from the date of publication of this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 5 January 2017.

For the Commission

The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER

News from AIIS: 2016 Steel Imports Press Release

Steel imports increased by 4.6 percent from October to November, driven almost entirely by a more than doubling of imports from Russia.

November’s 2.8 million net tons of imports were 14.2 percent higher than the monthly total from a year earlier.

Imports from Russia jumped 128.6 percent from the previous month to 212,000 net tons, a nearly 17 percent increase from November 2015. Imports from Brazil increased 30 percent to 377,000 net tons, down 2.1 percent from the previous November, and imports from Mexico grew by 10.6 percent to 300,000 net tons, which was almost 83 percent higher than in November of the previous year. Imports from Canada increased 5.6 percent to 495,000 net tons (up 13.7 percent from November 2015) while imports from the European Union fell about 5 percent to 404,000 net tons (up 2.4 percent).

Through the first 11 months of 2016, imports were 16.8 percent lower than they were during the same time in 2015 at 30.32 million net tons. Imports from Canada decreased 2.9 percent to 5.21 million net tons, while imports from the European Union, Brazil and South Korea all dropped more than 21 percent to 4.27 million net tons, 4.01 million net tons and 3.54 million net tons, respectively. Imports from Mexico were up 6.1 percent year-to-date at 2.75 million net tons.

Semifinished imports increased 34.7 percent from November 2015 to 672,000 net tons. Year-to-date, though, they decreased 15 percent to 5.94 million net tons.

November’s import numbers, especially when combined with other recent economic data, could be a cause for optimism. The economy grew at an annualized rate of 3.5 percent in the third quarter, the unemployment rate dropped to 4.6 percent in November and The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index reached a 15-year-high in December. If these trends continue and steel imports, which are a critical component of economic expansion, continue to regain ground, 2017 has the potential to be a good year.

Built by JMB Creative