2002R0163 — EN — 01.02.2002 — 000.001 — 1
This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
►B COUNCILREGULATION(EC)No163/2002
of28January2002
extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 368/98 on imports of
glyphosateoriginatinginthePeople's RepublicofChinatoimportsofglyphosateconsignedfromMalaysia or Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or Taiwan or not, and termi-nating the investigation in respect of imports from one Malaysian and one Taiwanese exporting
producer
(OJ L 30, 31.1.2002, p. 1)
Corrected by:
►C1Corrigendum, OJ L 140, 30.5.2002, p. 38 (163/2002)
▼B
COUNCILREGULATION(EC)No163/2002
of28January2002
extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation
(EC)No368/98onimportsofglyphosateoriginatinginthePeople'sRepublic of China to imports of glyphosate consigned fromMalaysia or Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Malaysia
or Taiwan or not, and terminating the investigation in respect of
imports from one Malaysian and one Taiwanese exporting
producer
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December
1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries notmembers of the European Community(
1), and in particular Article 13
thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after
consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A.PROCEDURE
1.Existingmeasures
(1)By Regulation (EC) No 368/98(2) (‘the definitive Regulation’),
the Council imposed an anti-dumping duty of 24 % on importsof glyphosate originating in the People's Republic of China (‘thePRC’). By Regulation (EC) No 1086/2000(
3), the rate of duty
applicable was increased to 48 % pursuant to Article 12 of
Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (‘the basic Regulation’).
2.Request
(2)On 26 March 2001, the Commission received a request pursuant
to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation from the European
Glyphosate Association (EGA) to investigate the alleged circum-vention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports ofglyphosate originating in the PRC. The request was submittedon behalf of a major proportion of Community producers of
glyphosate (‘the Community industry’).
(3)The request alleged that there had been a change in the pattern
of trade following the imposition of anti-dumping measures on
imports of glyphosate originating in the PRC as shown by a
significant increase in imports from Malaysia and Taiwan whileimports from the PRC had decreased substantially in the mean-time.
(4)This change in the pattern of trade was alleged to stem from thetranshipment of glyphosate originating in the PRC via Malaysiaor Taiwan and also from the formulation in Malaysia or Taiwanof glyphosate originating in the PRC. It was claimed that the
formulation was a relatively simple operation, which mainly
consists of diluting glyphosate salt with water and blending itwith surfactant. It was also claimed that this operation led to anincrease of the shipment costs for the importers. The requestconcluded, consequently, that there was insufficient due cause
or economic justification for these practices other than the exis-
tence of the anti-dumping duty on glyphosate originating in thePRC.2002R0163 — EN — 01.02.2002 — 000.001 — 2
(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No
2238/2000 (OJ L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2).
(2) OJ L 47, 18.2.1998, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 124, 25.5.2000, p. 1.
▼B
(5)Finally, the Community industry alleged that the remedial effects
of the existing anti-dumping duty on glyphosate were being
undermined both in terms of quantities and price and thatdumping was taking place in relation to the normal valuespreviously established, for imports consigned from Malaysia orTaiwan.
3.Initiation
(6)The Commission initiated an investigation by Regulation (EC)
No 909/2001(1) (‘initiating Regulation’). Pursuant to Article
13(3) and Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, it directed the
customs authorities to register imports of glyphosate consignedfrom Malaysia or Taiwan, whether declared as originating inMalaysia or Taiwan or not, as from 10 May 2001.
4.Investigation
(7)The Commission advised the representatives of Malaysia, the
PRC and Taiwan of the initiation of the investigation. Question-
naires were sent to the producers and exporters in Malaysia and
Taiwan named in the request, to the importers in the Communityand to the exporters in the PRC known to the Commission aswell as to other interested parties who came forward within theprescribed time limit. Interested parties were given the opportu-
nity to make their views known in writing and to request a
hearing within the time limit set in the initiating Regulation.
(8)A number of exporting producers in Malaysia and Taiwan, aswell as Community producers and importers, made their viewsknown in writing. All parties who so requested within the abovetime limit, and who demonstrated that there were particularreasons why they should be heard, were granted the opportunityto be heard.
(9)No reply to the questionnaire was received from exporters ofglyphosate in the PRC. Replies to the questionnaire were
received within the prescribed time limits from 11 unrelated
importers, three Malaysian exporting producers and one Taiwa-nese exporting producer that also acted as a trader. TheCommission carried out verification visits at the premises of thefollowing companies:
Malaysian exporting producers:
— CropProtection (M) Sdn. Bhd., Klang, Selangor D.E.,
Malaysia,
— Kenso Corporation (M) Sdn. Bhd., Petaling Jaya, Selangor
D.E., Malaysia,
— Mastra Industries Sdn. Bhd., Port Klang, Selangor D.E.,
Malaysia and its related exporter Agrimart Sdn. Bhd,
Petaling Jaya, Malaysia;
Taiwanese exporting producer/trader:
— Sinon Corporation, Taichung, Taiwan.
5.Investigationperiod
(10)The investigation period covered the period from 1 April 2000 to
31 March 2001 (‘the IP’). Data were collected from 1994 uptothe IP to investigate the change in the pattern of trade.2002R0163 — EN — 01.02.2002 — 000.001 — 3
(1) OJ L 127, 9.5.2001, p. 35.
▼B
B.RESULTSOFTHEINVESTIGATION
1.General considerations/degree ofcooperation
(a) Malaysia
(11)In September 2001, namely three months after the expiry of the
deadline for receipt of replies to the questionnaire, the Commis-
sion received a submission on behalf of Halex Industries (M)Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia) and from Agrolex Private Limited (Singa-pore), involved as producer and exporter respectively, in theformulation of glyphosate acid in Malaysia and exports to the
Community. It was claimed that the submission had already
been made within the time limits provided for in the basic Regu-lation and the initiating Regulation. However, the Commissionhad no record of earlier receipt; no proof of successful transmis-sion could be provided and it appeared that the submission hadbeen faxed to a telephone number. Given that the submission
was received at such an advanced stage of the investigation
and, in addition, would have required further explanations andverification, these companies could not be considered as coop-erating in the investigation and, therefore, findings in respect ofthem are made on the basis of the facts available in accordance
with Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation.
(12)The verification visit revealed that Mastra Industries (M) Sdn.Bhd. (‘Mastra Industries’) was related to another company in
Malaysia belonging to the Nufarm group, Nufarm MalaysiaSdn. Bhd. (‘Nufarm Malaysia’) and that Nufarm Malaysia was,at least, involved in imports into Malaysia of glyphosate acidoriginating in the PRC and in the formulation of such glyphosateacid in Malaysia. Nufarm Malaysia had stated at the beginning
of the investigation that neither it nor any related subsidiary
company of Nufarm Malaysia had at any time exported anyglyphosate products, either directly or indirectly, to any countryin the Community. In reply to this, the Commission informedNufarm Malaysia that it was not required to fill in the question-
naire if it had not been involved in imports of glyphosate into
Malaysia from the PRC or exports of glyphosate to the Commu-nity during the IP. Nufarm Malaysia subsequently merelyconfirmed its original statement. In its reply to the questionnaire,Mastra Industries presented the ‘Mastra group’ of related compa-nies, to which it belonged, without mentioning its relationshipto
Nufarm Malaysia and other relationships to the Nufarm group(
1).
(13)As in all anti-dumping investigations, a determination has to be
made in respect of the economic entity formed by the coop-erating exporting producer and all its related companies whichare involved with the production and/or trade of the productconcerned. This was made impossible by the absence of verifiedinformation on the corporate structure, purchases, production/
processing (including costs) and sales of Nufarm Malaysia. In
accordance with Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation, MastraIndustries was informed of these findings and invited to presentcomments and further explanations.
(14)Mastra Industries confirmed its relationshipwith NufarmMalaysia and explained that the Commission reply to NufarmMalaysia led Mastra Industries to believe that Nufarm Malaysia
was not involved in any way. It should, however, be noted that
(i) this reply was given on the basis of wrong informationsubmitted by Nufarm Malaysia and (ii) the questionnaire drewattention to the necessity for all related companies involvedwith the product concerned to complete the questionnaire. Adefinition of related company was also provided in the question-2002R0163 — EN — 01.02.2002 — 000.001 — 4
(1) Two companies related to Mastra Industries, Mastra K.K. (Japan) and
Mastra Corporation Pty Ltd (Australia), were related to Nufarm (Australia)
via shareholdings and directorship.
▼B
naire. In addition, following analysis of Mastra Industries' ques-
tionnaire reply, Mastra Industries was asked to identify theshareholders of the related companies listed as being all its
subsidiaries or other related companies in all countries involved
directly or indirectly with glyphosate. Mastra Industries failed todisclose before the verification visit the shareholders of two ofthese companies, Mastra K.K (Japan) and Mastra CorporationPty Ltd (Australia), which would have shown the relationship
to the Nufarm group. Nufarm Malaysia eventually offered to
provide every information required to verify that it had neverexported any glyphosate products to the Community, but didnot submit any supporting information, which would have been,in any case, submitted at a very advanced stage of the investiga-tion.
(15)Given that incorrect information has been submitted and thatnecessary information (concerning the relationshipbetweenNufarm Malaysia and Mastra Industries) and the questionnairereply by Nufarm Malaysia have not been provided within thetime limits provided for in the basic Regulation, findings inrespect of Mastra Industries and its related companies are made
on the basis of the facts available in accordance with Article
18(1) of the basic Regulation.
(16)The two exporting producers in Malaysia that cooperatedaccounted for less than 50 %(
1) in volume and value of the total
imports of glyphosate from Malaysia during the IP, as reportedby Eurostat at TARIC level.
(b) Taiwan
(17)The sole Taiwanese exporting producer that cooperated in the
investigation, Sinon Corporation, accounted for less than25 % (
1) in volume and value of the total imports of glyphosate
from Taiwan during the IP, as reported by Eurostat at TARIC
level.
2.Productunderconsiderationandlikeproduct
(18)The product under consideration is, as defined in the original
investigation, glyphosate currently classifiable within CN codesex 2931 0095 (TARIC code 2931 00 95*80) and ex 3808 30 27
(TARIC code 3808 30 27*10). Glyphosate is a herbicide which
can be produced in different grades or forms of concentrationof which the main ones are the following: acid (generally with95 % glyphosate content), cake (generally with 84 % glyphosatecontent), salt (generally with 46 % glyphosate content), andformulated (generally with 36 %, by volume, glyphosate
content), the last being the only form that is used as an end
product.
(19)The investigation showed that the glyphosate exported to theCommunity originating in the PRC and that consigned fromMalaysia or Taiwan to the Community have the same basicphysical and chemical characteristics and have the same uses.
They are therefore to be considered as like products within the
meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
3.Changeinthepatternoftrade
(a)Cooperating exporting producers
Malaysia
(20)The two cooperating exporting producers in Malaysia substan-
tially increased their exports to the Community between 1998and the IP, following the imposition of measures on glyphosate2002R0163 — EN — 01.02.2002 — 000.001 — 5
(1) For reasons of confidentiality, precise data are not given.
▼B
originating in the PRC. The rate of increase was even higher
than that registered for the non-cooperating companies and inboth cases export records showed a clear change in the pattern
of trade to the Community at the beginning of 1998.
Taiwan
(21)The cooperating exporting producer in Taiwan, Sinon Corpora-
tion, re-started its exports to the Community in 1998 and these
increased substantially between then and the IP.
Conclusion
(22)A change in the pattern of trade was therefore established in
respect of the cooperating exporting producers and coincided in
the case of both exporting countries with the entry into force ofanti-dumping measures on glyphosate originating in the PRC atthe beginning of 1998.
(b)Non-cooperating companies
(23)As far as the non-cooperating companies are concerned, the
Commission had to establish the exports to the Community onthe basis of the facts available pursuant to Article 18 of the basicRegulation. Considering that the CN codes also include products
other than glyphosate, it was considered that Eurostat data at
TARIC level were the best information available to establishthe findings in respect of exports to the Community followingthe imposition of the anti-dumping duty on imports of glypho-sate originating in the PRC. Deductions were made in respectof the export quantities of the cooperating exporting produ-
cers(
1). Eurostat data at TARIC level were only available for
full calendar years beginning from 1998. Therefore, the compar-ison of the share of each country in the total volume of importsof glyphosate into the Community during the original IP(September 1994 to August 1995) and the current IP was made
based on Eurostat data at CN level. For the same reason, Euro-
stat data at CN level were used to confirm the pattern of tradeover the period 1994 to the IP, which confirmed the conclusionsreached with Eurostat data at TARIC level(
2).
Malaysia
(24)Imports into the Community of glyphosate from Malaysia
increased from 740 tonnes(3) in 1998 to 1 045 tonnes (3)o f
95 % acid equivalent in the IP, reaching a peak of 1 370tonnes (
3) in 1999. The share of Malaysia in the total volume of
imports of glyphosate into the Community has also increased
from 2,3 % in the original IP to 5,2 % in the current IP. Analysis
at TARIC level(4) showed an increased share, rising from 22 %
to 29,7 %.2002R0163 — EN — 01.02.2002 — 000.001 — 6
(1) Analysis of Eurostat data at TARIC level was carried out after first
converting quantities to 95 % acid equivalent, using the best information
available, in order to allow for the different forms of concentration. Import
statistics registered under the TARIC code 3808 3027*10 were converted,
using the most common 36 % glyphosate content for formulated product.
For imports registered under the TARIC code 29310095*80, since no
information was available on the proportion of acid and salt imported and
on their concentration, conversion to 95 % was limited to the quantities
declared by the cooperating exporting producers and deducted from the total
imports.
(2) For the analysis of Eurostat data at CN level, quantities were not converted
to 95 % acid equivalent because this was considered unreliable given that
the CN codes include products other than glyphosate.
(3) Real figures have been amended by a certain percentage to preserve confi-
dentiality.
(4) The volume in the original IP was established by applying to the quantities
registered at CN level the ratio of quantities at CN level/quantities at
TARIC level for 1998 and converting to 95 % acid equivalent.
▼B
(25)Eurostat data at CN level for the period 1994 to the IP show, at
the beginning of 1998, a marked change in the pattern of trade
from a slow increase to a significant increase, similar to thatobserved at TARIC level.
Taiwan
(26)Imports into the Community of glyphosate from Taiwan
increased from 36 tonnes(1) in 1998 to 922 tonnes (1)o f9 5%
acid equivalent in the IP, reaching a peak of 1 335 tonnes (1)i n
2000. The share of Taiwan in the total volume of imports ofglyphosate into the Community has also increased from 0,8 %in the original IP to 3 % in the current IP. Analysis at TARIClevel(
2) showed an increased share, rising from 1,4 % to 19,7 %.
(27)Eurostat data at CN level for the period 1994 to the IP shows, atthe beginning of 1998, a marked change in the pattern of tradefrom a slow decrease to a significant increase, similar to that
observed at TARIC level.
The PRC
(28)From the imposition of the measures, the share of the PRC in the
total volume of imports of glyphosate into the Community hasdecreased from 24,6 % in the original IP to 8,5 % in the current
IP. Analysis at TARIC level (
2) showed a decreased share, chan-
ging from 24,6 % to 11,9 %, and an even more substantialdecrease, from 19,9 % to 1,5 %, if imports under the normalcustoms regime (subject to the payment of the anti-dumpingduty) are exclusively considered, since most imports were madeunder inward processing regimes.
(29)Export statistics from the PRC at a level equivalent to CN levelshow, for glyphosate not put up for retail sale, a substantialincrease between 1997 and the IP of the exports to Malaysia
(from an index of 100 to 171) and Taiwan (from an index of
100 to 187).
Conclusion
(30)A change in the pattern of trade was therefore established in
respect of the non-cooperating companies and coincided, in the
case of both exporting countries, with the entry into force of
anti-dumping measures on glyphosate originating in the PRC atthe beginning of 1998.
4.Insufficientduecauseoreconomic justification
(a)Cooperating exporting producers
Malaysia
(31)CropProtection (M) Sdn. Bhd. (‘CropProtection’) transformed
purchased glyphosate acid, part of which was originating in the
PRC, into salt or formulated products. However, their purchases
of PRC-origin acid increased less significantly than theirpurchases of non-PRC-origin acid and did not show a constantmovement (plunge in 1998, increase up to 2000, decrease withinthe IP). Moreover, most of the supply of PRC origin acid wascaused by Monsanto (M) Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia)(
3) due to its
inability to supply Crop Protection with the US origin acid it
had ordered. Direct purchases from another supplier in the PRCwere minor. Additionally, to satisfy customers' requests, Crop2002R0163 — EN — 01.02.2002 — 000.001 — 7
(1) Real figures have been amended by a certain percentage to preserve confi-
dentiality.
(2) The volume in the original IP was established by applying to the quantities
registered at CN level the ratio of quantities at CN level/quantities at
TARIC level for 1998 and converting to 95 % acid equivalent.
(3) Related to Monsanto Europe, one of the complainants.
▼B
Protection limited the use of acid originating in the PRC for
production of glyphosate exported to the Community. It wastherefore considered that CropProtection reasonably established
that the imposition of the anti-dumping duty on glyphosate origi-
nating in the PRC did not drive the change in its pattern of trade.
(32)Kenso Corporation (M) Sdn. Bhd. (‘Kenso Corporation’) trans-formed glyphosate acid exclusively supplied from the PRC intosalt or formulated products. Kenso Corporation advanced argu-ments to justify economically the formulation in Malaysia of
PRC origin acid. These arguments related to the low know-how
in the PRC and cost efficiency in Malaysia. However, this didnot explain why Kenso Corporation started to sell to a customerfor export to the Community soon after the time of the imposi-tion of the anti-dumping measures on the PRC. Thoughconcerned by the investigation, this customer did not cooperate.
The general pattern and developments of Kenso Corporation's
exports did not explain either their appearance on the Commu-nity market. Therefore, the change in the pattern of traderemained unexplained.
Taiwan
(33)Sinon Corporation produces glyphosate starting from the initial
stage of producing glyphosate acid and also formulatespurchased glyphosate acid which does not originate in the PRC,both operations being carried out in Taiwan. The investigationhas shown that Sinon has exported to the Community its ownproduced product, with the exception of limited quantities of
formulated glyphosate purchased from a Malaysian company
and shipped directly from Malaysia to the Community. It wastherefore considered that Sinon Corporation reasonably estab-lished that the imposition of the anti-dumping duty onglyphosate originating in the PRC did not drive the change inits pattern of trade.
Conclusion
(34)Given the above, it is considered that CropProtection and Sinon
Corporation have shown that there were reasonable grounds,other than the imposition of the anti-dumping duty on glyphosateoriginating in the PRC, for the change in their pattern of trade.
Consequently, the investigation with regard to glyphosate
produced by these two companies should be terminated.
(35)Kenso Corporation failed to submit evidence of sufficient duecause or economic justification for the change in its pattern oftrade. An investigation was consequently carried out, in itsrespect, to assess the undermining of the remedial effects of theduty and the existence of dumping in relation to the normal
values previously established.
(b)Non-cooperating companies
(36)In the absence of cooperation, and given the coincidence in time
with the imposition of the anti-dumping measures on the PRC, ithas to be concluded that the change in the pattern of tradestemmed from the imposition of the anti-dumping duty rather
than from any other sufficient due cause or economic justifica-
tion within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 13(1)of the basic Regulation.
(37)This conclusion is reinforced by the following. Export statisticsfrom the PRC show a substantial increase in exports to Taiwanor Malaysia between 1997 and the IP (see recital 29) for glypho-
sate not put up for retail sale (i.e. non formulated). The
significant increase in imports to the Community from Malaysiaor Taiwan was mainly registered on the non formulated glypho-sate. Exports from the PRC to Taiwan were, in Taiwaneseimports statistics, either (i) not registered (systematically forformulated glyphosate, the import of which into Taiwan from2002R0163 — EN — 01.02.2002 — 000.001 — 8
▼B
mainland China is, in any case, prohibited by Taiwanese customs
law) or (ii) registered in much lower quantities for non formu-lated glyphosate.
(38)The Commission has also investigated whether the development,in Malaysia and Taiwan, of transformation operations of theglyphosate acid into another form (salt or formulated product)
could justify the change in the pattern of trade. The added value
of the operations is minor (around 5 % on the cost of manufac-turing). Information on manufacturing and transport costs fromcooperating companies in Malaysia (quantities from Taiwan aretoo low to draw conclusions) give no evidence that transformingthe acid into salt locally rather than in the Community is cost
saving. Even if formulating acid locally rather than in the
Community can compensate for the increased shipping costsinvolved, this does not explain why exports to the Communitysurged immediately after the imposition of anti-dumpingmeasures on the PRC.
(39)It was, therefore, concluded that no reasonable grounds, otherthan avoiding the existing anti-dumping duty on imports ofglyphosate originating in the PRC, could be established for thechange in the pattern of trade of the non-cooperating companies
and that the investigation of the other criteria should be
continued in their respect.
5.Undermining of the remedial effects of the duty in terms of the
pricesand/orthequantitiesofthelikeproducts
(40)In view of the conclusions reached in recitals 31 to 39, the
analysis of the undermining of the remedial effects of the duty
in terms of quantities and prices has been limited to thoseeconomic operators for which the change in pattern of tradewas found to have insufficient due cause or economic justifica-tion.
(41)Since the imposition of measures in the original investigation, aquantitative change in the pattern of Community importsoccurred, which undermined the remedial effects of the measuresin terms of the quantities imported into the Community. Theimports of glyphosate from the PRC in the IP of the original
investigation (1 397 tonnes) were exceeded by exports from
Taiwan and Malaysia in the IP (representing 1 864 tonnes).
(42)With regard to prices, and regarding the cooperating Malaysianexporting producer Kenso Corporation, the investigation
revealed that the export prices submitted by this company(
1)
are still below the non-depressed level of Community prices asestablished in the original investigation. In fact, they were evenlower than the export prices established in the original investiga-tion.
(43)Regarding non-cooperating companies from Malaysia andTaiwan, the investigation also revealed that the prices of theseimports, on the basis of the responses provided by unrelatedimporters in the Community and representing a volume of
around 50 % of the Chinese imports in the previous investiga-
tion, were also below the non-depressed level of Communityprices as established in the original investigation and even lowerthan the export prices established in the original investigation.
(44)It is therefore concluded that the imports concerned underminedthe remedial effects of the duty both in terms of quantities andprices.2002R0163 — EN — 01.02.2002 — 000.001 — 9
(1) The export prices were duly adjusted for import duty and post importation
costs.
▼B
6.Evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously
establishedforlikeorsimilar products
(45)It has to be recalled that Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation
requires evidence of dumping in relation to the normal valuespreviously established for the like or similar products but doesnot require the establishment of a new dumping margin.
(46)The investigation into the absence of movement, or insufficient
movement, in the resale prices or subsequent selling prices in
the Community, concluded by Regulation (EC) No 1086/2000,re-examined the normal values of the original case (see recital1). Consequently, the normal values used in the present investi-gation were those as re-examined, since these represent the
normal values previously established for the like or similar
products in accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regula-tion.
(a)Cooperating exporting producer
(47)Given that the change in the pattern of trade of Crop Protection
and Sinon Corporation was considered as having a due causeother than the imposition of the anti-dumping duty on the PRC,the evidence of dumping was investigated only in respect of theexports to the Community of Kenso Corporation.
(48)For the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal valueand the export price, due allowance, in the form of adjustments,was made for differences which affect prices and price compar-ability. These adjustments were made in accordance with Article2(10) of the basic Regulation in respect of level of trade, trans-
port, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, credit and
commissions.
(49)In the original investigation, normal value was established forthe two forms of glyphosate produced and sold in the selectedanalogue country (Brazil), i.e. glyphosate acid and formulated
glyphosate. Since exports by Kenso Corporation of another
form was negligible in the IP and Article 13(1) of the basicRegulation does not require the establishment of a new dumpingmargin, no normal value was established for this type. In accor-dance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, theweighted average normal value of each form of glyphosate
exported to the Community was compared to the weighted
average export price of the corresponding form. The difference,expressed as a percentage of the cif import price at the Commu-nity frontier duty unpaid, showed a significant level of dumping.
(b)Non-cooperating companies
(50)The export prices were established on the basis of the total
export value and volume reported by Eurostat at TARIC level,from which the quantities and values exported by the coop-erating exporting producers were deducted for their respective
countries.
(51)The weighted average price of exports registered under the
TARIC code 3808 30 27*10 (herbicides, glyphosate) wascompared to the normal value for formulated glyphosate. Theother forms of glyphosate are registered under the TARIC code
293100 95*80 (organo-inorganic compounds, glyphosate). To
ensure a proper comparison which was unaffected by the productmix of the exports registered under this TARIC code, theweighted average export price was compared to both the normalvalue for glyphosate acid and to the lower normal value forformulated glyphosate. In both cases, substantial levels of
dumping were established.
(52)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 compar-ability. These adjustments were made in accordance with Article2002R0163 — EN — 01.02.2002 — 000.001 — 10
▼B
2(10) of the basic Regulation in respect of transport, insurance,
handling, loading and ancillary costs, credit and commissions.
(53)In accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regula-tion, the comparison of weighted average normal values andweighted average export prices expressed as a percentage of thecif import price at the Community frontier duty unpaid, showeda significant level of dumping.
C.REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION OR
EXTENSIONOFTHEDUTY
(54)The Commission received requests for exemption from the regis-
tration or measures from four unrelated importers and twocooperating exporting producers, Crop Protection and SinonCorporation. Given that the alleged circumvention was takingplace outside the Community, exemption of imports from regis-tration or measures was dependent on the findings in respect of
the exporters. No decision could therefore be taken by the
Commission purely on the basis of the exemption requestspresented by individual importers. Importers will, however,benefit from exemption from registration or measures to theextent that their imports are from exporters which have been
granted such an exemption.
(55)By Regulation (EC) No 2593/2001(1), the Commission amended
the initiating Regulation in order to cease registration of importsof glyphosate produced by those companies in the countriesconcerned found not to be circumventing the anti-dumping
duties, namely CropProtection and Sinon Corp oration.
(56)In accordance with the above findings that these companies were
found not to have circumvented the anti-dumping measures inforce, these companies should also be exempted from the exten-sion of the measures envisaged.
D.MEASURES
(57)In view of the above finding of circumvention within the
meaning of the second sentence of Article 13(1) of the basic
Regulation and in accordance with the first sentence of Article
13(1) of the basic Regulation, the existing anti-dumpingmeasures on glyphosate originating in the PRC should beextended to the same product consigned from Malaysia orTaiwan, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or Taiwanor not. Exception should be made for glyphosate consigned
from Malaysia and produced by Crop Protection and for glypho-
sate consigned from Taiwan and produced by Sinon Corporation.
(58)In accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, whichprovides that measures may be applied against registered importsfrom the date of registration, the anti-dumping duty should be
collected on imports of glyphosate consigned from Malaysia or
Taiwan which entered the Community under registrationimposed by the initiating Regulation, except on imports ofglyphosate consigned from Malaysia and produced by CropProtection and of glyphosate consigned from Taiwan and
produced by Sinon Corporation.
(59)The exemption from this extension which is granted to Crop
Protection and Sinon Corporation was established on the basisof the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, it reflectsthe situation found during that investigation with respect to these
companies. The non-extension is thus exclusively applicable to
imports of products consigned from Malaysia and produced byCropProtection, and to those consigned from Taiwan andproduced by Sinon Corporation. Imported products produced byany other company not specifically mentioned in the operativepart of this Regulation with its name and address, including enti-2002R0163 — EN — 01.02.2002 — 000.001 — 11
(1) OJ L 345, 29.12.2001, p. 29.
▼B
ties related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from
the exception and should be subject to the duty rate imposed bythe definitive Regulation.
(60)Any claim requesting the application of this exception would
have to be addressed to the Commission forthwith, with all rele-
vant information, in particular any modification in the company'sactivities linked to production and export sales.
(61)Taiwanese or Malaysian exporters requesting an exemptionpursuant to Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation will be requiredto complete a questionnaire in order to enable the Commissionto determine whether an exemption may be warranted, and theCommission would normally also carry out an on-spot verifica-
tion visit.
(62)Where exemption is considered appropriate, the Commission
would, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, amendthe Regulation accordingly by updating the list of companiesbenefiting from the exception.
E.PROCEDURE
(63)Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and
considerations on the basis of which the Commission intendedto propose the extension of the definitive anti-dumping duty in
force and were given the opportunity to comment. No comments
which were of a nature to change the above conclusions werereceived,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. The definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No
368/98 on imports of glyphosate falling within CN codesex 2931 00 95 ►
C1(Taric code 2931 00 95*82) ◄and
ex 3808 30 27 (TARIC code 3808 30 27*19) originating in the People's
Republic of China as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1086/2000, is
hereby extended to imports of glyphosate consigned from Malaysia(whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not) (TARIC codes2931 00 95*81 and 3808 3027*11) with the exception of thoseproduced by Crop Protection (M) Sdn. Bhd., Lot 746, Jalan Haji Sirat
4
1/2Miles, off Jalan Kapar, 42100 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan,
Malaysia (TARIC additional code A309).
2. The definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No
368/98 on imports of glyphosate falling within CN codesex 2931 00 95 ►
C1(Taric code 2931 00 95*82) ◄and
ex 3808 30 27 (TARIC code 3808 30 27*19) originating in the People's
Republic of China as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1086/2000, ishereby extended to imports of glyphosate consigned from Taiwan(whether declared as originating in Taiwan or not) (TARIC codes2931 00 95*81 and 3808 3027*11), with the exception of those
produced by Sinon Corporation, No. 23, Sec. 1, Mei Chuan W. Rd,
Taichung, Taiwan (TARIC additional code A310).
3. The duty extended by paragraph 1 and 2 shall be collected on
imports registered in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No909/2001 and Article 13(3) and Article 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No
384/96.
4. The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.
Article 2
1. Requests for exemption from the duty extended by Article 1 shall
be made in writing in one of the official languages of the Communityand must be signed by a person authorised to represent the applicant.The request must be sent to the following address:
Commission of the European Communities2002R0163 — EN — 01.02.2002 — 000.001 — 12
▼B
Directorate-General for Trade
Unit C-3B-1049 Brussels
Fax (32-2) 295 65 05.
2. The Commission, after consulting the Advisory Committee, shall
authorise, by decision, the exemption of imports from companies whichdo not circumvent the anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC)No 368/98 from the duty extended by Article 1.
Article 3
Customs authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the registration
of imports, established in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC)No 909/2001.
Article 4
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its
publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities .
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable
in all Member States.2002R0163 — EN — 01.02.2002 — 000.001 — 13