This document is meant purely as documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
"B COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1995/2000
of 18 September 2000
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duties imposed on
imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Algeria, Belarus, Lithuania, Russia and
Ukraine, and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports originating in the Slovak
Republic
(OJ L 238, 22.9.2000, p. 15)
Corrected by:
"C1 Corrigendum, OJ L 63, 3.3.2001, p. 67 (1995/2000)2000R1995 — EN — 23.09.2000 — 000.001 — 1
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1995/2000
of 18 September 2000
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the
provisional duties imposed on imports of solutions of urea and
ammonium nitrate originating in Algeria, Belarus, Lithuania, Russia and
Ukraine, and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of
imports originating in the Slovak Republic
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 not members of the
European Community (1), and in particular Article 9 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting
the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES
(1) The Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 617/2000 (2) (the ‘pro-
visional Regulation’) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on
imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate (UAN) falling
within CN code 3102 80 00 and originating in Algeria, Belarus,Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine and accepted, on a provisional basis, anundertaking offered by an exporting producer in Algeria.
(2) In the same Regulation, it was provisionally concluded that no
anti-dumping duty should be imposed on imports of the product
concerned originating in the Slovak Republic, also subject to the same
investigation, since these imports were not found to have causedmaterial injury to the Community industry.
B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE
(3) Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations
on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional measures on
imports of solutions of UAN originating in Algeria, Belarus, Lithuania,
Russia and Ukraine (‘disclosure’), several interested parties submittedcomments in writing. The parties who so requested were also grantedan opportunity to be heard orally.
(4) The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it
deemed necessary for its definitive findings.
(5) All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on
the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of
definitive anti-dumping duties and the definitive collection of amounts
secured by way of provisional duties. They were also granted a periodwithin which they could make representations subsequent to thisdisclosure.
(6) The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were
considered, and, where appropriate, the provisional findings have been
modified accordingly.
C. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
(7) As outlined in recital 8 of the provisional Regulation, the product
concerned is solutions of UAN, a liquid nitrogen fertiliser used in
agriculture. Whatever their nitrogen content, all solutions of UAN areconsidered to have the same basic physical and chemical char-
acteristics and therefore constitute a single product for the purpose of
this investigation.!B
(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 905/98
(OJ L 128, 30.4.1998, p. 18).
(2) OJ L 75, 24.3.2000, p. 3.2000R1995 — EN — 23.09.2000 — 000.001 — 2
(8) In view of the above and since no new arguments were put forward by
any of the parties concerned with respect to the Commission’ sprovisional findings on the product concerned and the considerationsmade on the like product, the facts and findings as set out in recitals 8
and 9 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
D. DUMPING
1.Algeria
(a) Normal value
(9) The cooperating exporting producer claimed that its cost of production
had been miscalculated because the Commission had not taken intoaccount the fact that no import duty was paid on imported rawmaterials used in manufacturing the product concerned for export. It
also claimed that the Commission had incorrectly determined the
transport costs from the factory to the port.
(10) Both claims were examined. As far as the import duty is concerned, the
claim was found to be correct. The constructed normal value was
therefore recalculated taking into account this element. With regard totransport costs, the claim was rejected, since no information to supportit had been provided. The remaining findings on normal value, as set
out in recitals 11 and 12 of the provisional Regulation, are confirmed.
(b) Export price, comparison
(11) In the absence of any comments under these headings, the provisional
findings, as set out in recitals 13 and 14 of the provisional Regulation,
are confirmed.
(c) Dumping margin
(12) In the absence of any comments concerning the methodology used for
the calculation of the dumping margin, the methodology described in
recital 15 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed. On this basis, thedefinitive dumping margin for the cooperating exporting producer,
expressed as a percentage of the cif Community frontier price, is now
9,7 %.
Since the sole known exporting producer accounted for all Algerian
exports of the product concerned to the Community, the residual
dumping margin is set at the same level.
2.Lithuania
(a) Normal value
(13) The Lithuanian producer objected to the Commission’ s provisional
findings, claiming that its normal value, which had been constructed inthe absence of domestic sales of the product concerned, was too highand had resulted in an excessive dumping margin (7,6 %). In
particular, it claimed that its selling, general and administrative
(SG & A) expenses had been overstated and that these same expenseshad been taken from a different set of accounts (the audited accountsfor 1998) to that used for calculating the manufacturing cost (internal
management accounts covering the investigation period, June 1998 to
May 1999), thereby distorting the results.
(14) Since it was found that there were no domestic sales of the product
concerned, the amounts for SG & A expenses had to be determined inaccordance with Article 2(6) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (hereafterreferred to as the ‘Basic Regulation’). As there were no other
Lithuanian producers whose SG & A amounts could be used, the sole
Lithuanian producer’ s SG & A amounts were determined for ‘the samegeneral category of products for the exporter or producer in question inthe domestic market of the company of origin’. In this regard, it should
be mentioned that the company did not originally provide any
information at all on its global SG & A expenses in its reply to thequestionnaire. In fact, this information was provided following adeficiency letter by the Commission but when sent was not only
incorrect, but incomplete in that financial expenses had been omitted.
It had therefore been considered appropriate to make use of a reliable!B2000R1995 — EN — 23.09.2000 — 000.001 — 3
source of information (the 1998 audited accounts) for the purposes of
the provisional determination.
(15) Following the publication of the provisional Regulation, the SG & A
expenses were recalculated on the basis of the same internalmanagement accounts which had been used in the provisional findings
to determine the manufacturing cost of the product concerned. The
Commission requested further clarification of the company’ s figuresand reviewed all the information it had obtained since the beginning ofthe investigation. It reached the conclusion that the figures provided a
basis which was indeed reliable enough to be used. As a result of the
recalculation of SG & A expenses, the normal value was adjusteddownwards.
(16) Following disclosure of the definitive findings, the Lithuanian
producer raised further objections.
In general terms, the company claimed that the revised methodology
had led to a number of inconsistencies due to the fact that the accounts
used for the determination of SG & A expenses were incomplete orinaccurate. Regarding this general comment, it should be noted that
these were the same accounts used for the determination of the cost of
manufacturing, and had not been contested by the company at theprovisional stage — indeed, the company had argued strongly thatthese accounts should also be used for determining the SG & A
expenses.
The company then made a number of specific claims. Firstly, it
claimed that the internal management accounts covering theinvestigation period understated both its total and its domesticturnover. The claim was rejected because the company had had
sufficient opportunity since the beginning of the investigation to
provide a complete and accurate picture of its situation. It had made nomention of the possible inaccuracy of the figures it had provided untilit had decided to contest the definitive findings and even then did not
provide an explanation for the turnover discrepancies.
Secondly, the company claimed that its export SG & A costs were
understated in the management accounts because the latter did notinclude SG & A costs for exports to markets other than the
Community; consequently, the Commission should have deducted a
larger amount from its total SG & A costs in order to arrive at thecorrect amount for domestic SG & A. This claim was rejected becausethe costs in question represented an extremely high proportion of the
income from export sales to these other markets, compared with
exports to the Community, and because no mention of this incon-sistency had been made earlier in the proceeding and no explanationfor the failure to include these expenses being missing in the
management accounts had been provided.
Thirdly, the company claimed that some of its financial expenses were
not attributable to the production of UAN since a large part of itsbusiness consisted of holding activities. Here it should be pointed outthat fertiliser production accounts for the vast bulk of the company’ s
business and, moreover, that the company failed to include any data on
financial expenses in its reply to the questionnaire, arguing that nosuch expenses were attributable to UAN. It is considered that all
expenses which are not directly attributable to a particular product
should nonetheless be attributed and that, in the absence of any morereasonable approach, turnover is an appropriate basis for allocation ofthese expenses. This claim was therefore rejected, except in respect of
‘financial brokerage expenses’, which, it was found, did not need to be
taken into account since they would have had no impact on thedefinitive findings.
Fourthly, it was claimed that the general and administrative expenses
(G & A) should only have been included insofar as they related to
production activities. The company produced a table containing
figures prepared on this basis by its external auditors. This claim wasrejected because the auditors, in a letter to which the table wasattached, had expressly declined to give an opinion on the figures. In
addition, the argument in the preceding paragraph concerning the
across-the-board allocation of costs is equally relevant here. A similar!B2000R1995 — EN — 23.09.2000 — 000.001 — 4
claim contesting the allocation of G & A expenses incurred in
connection with trading activities, and for which no supportingevidence was provided, was also rejected.
(17) The complainant, the European Fertilisers Manufacturers’ Association
(EFMA), also made comments on the method of constructing normal
value for the Lithuanian producer and claimed that the Commissionshould have made adjustments in respect of:
— depreciation rates, on the grounds that those applied by the
producer were too low and were not in line with those applied in
Western Europe, and by the Community industry in particular,
— fixed asset valuations, on the grounds that the producer’ s assets
were not valued in accordance with international accounting
standards,
— the gas price, judged to be too low, charged by the Russian gas
supplier, resulting in an abnormally low cost of production. Thecomplainant suggested that the Commission recalculate the
producer’ s gas costs on the basis of figures obtained from a
Community gas supplier showing what was considered to be thelowest reasonable price the Lithuanian producer could be expectedto have paid for gas in the investigation period.
All three claims were examined. As far as concerns depreciation, most,
but by no means all, of the rates used by the Lithuanian producer werelonger than those used by Community producers, but were nonethelessmostly within the range of variation found in the Community;
however, the depreciation charge, as a percentage of the cost of
production, was not significantly different from that typically found inthe Community industry. Moreover, the rates were in line with
Lithuanian accounting practices. The fixed asset valuations were also
found to be stated in accordance with national accounting standards.These claims were therefore rejected.
With regard to the claim concerning gas prices, this question had
already been thoroughly examined at the provisional stage of the
proceeding and it had been concluded that there was no evidence tosuggest that the prices charged were not reliable, or did not reflect thetrue cost of supply. Moreover, the price paid for gas by the Lithuanian
producer was found not to be lower than the price advanced by the
complainant. This claim, too, was therefore rejected.
(b) Export price, comparison
(18) In the absence of any comments under these headings, the provisional
findings, as set out in recitals 17 and 18 of the provisional Regulation,are confirmed.
(c) Dumping margin
(19) In the absence of any comments concerning the methodology used for
the calculation of the dumping margin, the methodology described inrecital 19 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed. On this basis, thedefinitive dumping margin for the cooperating exporting producer,
taking into account the changes mentioned above, and expressed as a
percentage of the cif Community frontier price, is 5,8 %.
Since the sole known exporting producer accounted for all Lithuanian
exports of the product concerned to the Community, the residual
dumping margin is set at the same level.
3.Belarus, Russia, Ukraine
(a) Analogue country
(20) In the absence of any comments concerning the choice of Lithuania as
market economy third country, the provisional conclusion as set out in
recital 22 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.!B2000R1995 — EN — 23.09.2000 — 000.001 — 5
(b) Russia
(i) Individual treatment
(21) One cooperating exporting producer requested that its claim for
individual treatment be reconsidered on the grounds that, with respectto its export sales, it was not subject to any interference by the State. Insupport of this claim, it advanced the following arguments:
— the conditions and terms of its export sales were determined
freely,
— the company’ s supervisory board was elected annually by the
shareholders, the majority of whom were private companies orindividuals. All but one of the board’ s members were independent
from the State,
— exchange rate conversions were carried out at the market rate.
(22) The Commission reviewed the claim for individual treatment focusing
its analysis, at this definitive stage, mainly on those areas having adirect impact on the company’ s export activities. On this basis, it
considered that the arguments put forward by the company were valid,
and, since it was also considered that the level of state interference wasnot such as to permit circumvention of measures if exporters are givendifferent rates of duty, the company’ s claim has been accepted.
(23) The complainant objected strongly to the granting of individual
treatment to this producer at the definitive stage, given that theCommission had rejected the request at the provisional stage on thegrounds that it was ‘not sufficiently free of State influence’. This fact
alone should have been enough to stop the Commission reversing its
decision. It argued that the Russian State’ s discounting of gas pricesgave its fertiliser producers an unfair competitive advantage and thattheir export sales could therefore not be considered to be truly
market-based transactions. It also expressed concern about the
increased potential for circumvention of the duties, because theindividual margin was slightly lower than the countrywide margin.
It should be pointed out that decisions taken at the provisional stage are
always reviewed in the light of comments received and may be
modified before definitive findings are reached. Whilst it remainedtrue that the State had an influence in the setting of gas prices, thedetermination of normal value on the basis of constructed value in the
analogue country rendered this argument irrelevant. Moreover, the
company had been found to be free to decide what quantities to exportand at what prices. In any event, accepting this argument would betantamount to denying individual treatment to all companies which did
not qualify for market economy status (i.e. because it did not meet the
criteria laid down at Article 2(7)(c) of the Basic Regulation). As to theadded risk of circumvention, reference is made to recital 23 dealing
with the independence of the Russian company concerned from the
State.
(ii) Comparison
(24) The complainant also questioned the basis on which the normal value
had been compared to the export price, i.e. on a fob (ex-exportingcountry frontier) basis. It argued that the use of this method haddistorted the findings because it did not adequately take into account
the differences in internal transport costs in market and non-market
economy countries, and that if the comparison had been made on anex-works basis, the dumping margin would have been significantly
greater.
The comparison of normal value with the export price should be made
at the genuinely similar commercial stage, whether this is fob orex-works. In the present case, the product concerned is a bulk product,for which the transport costs account for a very high proportion of the
selling price. After careful examination of the arguments, it is
considered that the fob comparison does indeed give an undueadvantage to companies whose geographical location, if they werelocated in a market economy country, would prohibit them from
exporting bulk products, and has therefore, for the purposes of the
definitive determination, changed the basis of the comparison from fob!B2000R1995 — EN — 23.09.2000 — 000.001 — 6
to ex-works. The appropriate adjustments were therefore made to the
export price in respect of the costs for transport from ex-works to portand for port services.
(iii) Dumping margin
(25) The individual dumping margin for the cooperating exporting producer
granted individual treatment, and the countrywide dumping margin for
all other producers were recalculated using the revised normal value of
the Lithuanian producer (see recitals 13 to 15).
On this basis, the dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the
cif Community frontier price, are:
JSC Nevinnomyssky Azot: 28,5 %
All other companies: 41,0 %.
(c) Belarus
(i) Comparison
(26) In view of the change in the basis of comparison from fob to ex-works
level (see recital 24), the appropriate adjustments were made to theexport price in respect of the costs for transport from ex-works to port
and for port services.
(ii) Dumping margin
(27) The dumping margin for Belarus was recalculated using the revised
normal value of the Lithuanian producer (see recitals 13 to 15).
(28) The cooperating exporting producer claimed that it had not been given
adequate disclosure of the provisional findings and therefore had beenprevented from making any substantive or meaningful comment on the
dumping margin calculation. In addition, it claimed that the quantities
exported had been miscalculated because returns had not been takeninto account and because some of the UAN exported had a nitrogencontent of 30 % instead of the more usual 32 %. Finally, it claimed that
the cif value had been wrongly calculated.
(29) As far as the amount of information contained in the disclosure
document on the provisional findings is concerned, it is considered thatthe information provided was the maximum possible without
breaching the duty of confidentiality to the sole Lithuanian producer
in respect of its own normal value.
(30) With regard to the other claims, the available information was
reviewed and the export quantities adjusted. As regards the calculation
of the cif value, the methodology adopted in the provisional Regulation
is confirmed.
(31) In the absence of any other comments concerning the determination of
the dumping margin, the methodology set out in recital 31 of the
provisional duty Regulation is confirmed. On this basis, the country-
wide dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of the cif Communityfrontier price, is 55,0 %.
(d) Ukraine
(i) Comparison
(32) In view of the change in the basis of comparison from fob to ex-works
level (see recital 24), the appropriate adjustments were made to theexport price in respect of the costs for transport from ex-works to portand for port services.
(ii) Dumping margin
(33) The Commission recalculated the Ukrainian dumping margin using the
revised normal value of the Lithuanian producer (see recitals 13 to 15).
On this basis, the countrywide dumping margin, expressed as a
percentage of the cif Community frontier price, is 50,4 %.!B2000R1995 — EN — 23.09.2000 — 000.001 — 7
E.DEFINITION OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY
(34) In the absence of any comments or new information the provisional
findings as described in recitals 35 and 36 of the provisionalRegulation on the definition of the Community industry are
confirmed.
F.INJURY
1.Cumulation
(35) The complainant questioned the decumulation of the Slovak Republic,
without however submitting any new information. In this respect it is
underlined, in particular, that both the volumes and market shares of
the imports originating in the Slovak Republic were the lowest of allcountries concerned and that their prices did not undercut those of theCommunity industry. The provisional findings regarding the appropri-
ateness of the decumulation of imports originating in the Slovak
Republic are therefore confirmed.
(36) The Algerian exporting producer submitted that imports originating in
Algeria should be assessed separately, on the grounds of a low
dumping margin, a small average market share and a small
undercutting margin. In this respect, it should be outlined that thedumping margin for the imports originating in Algeria is above the de
minimis level and the volume of these imports during the investigation
period is not negligible. Furthermore, as to the conditions of
competition, there was an upward trend in the volume of imports,the price behaviour of the Algerian exporting producer wascomparable to that of the other exporting producers in the other
countries concerned and price undercutting was found for these
imports which used the same channels of trade. For these reasons, andin accordance with Article 3(4) of the Basic Regulation, theprovisional findings as described in recital 41 of the provisional
Regulation are confirmed.
2.Price undercutting
(37) The exporting producer in Belarus submitted that the customs duty
applicable for imports originating in Belarus was 6,8 % in 1998 and
6,5 % in 1999 while the Commission, in the calculation of the cifCommunity frontier value, ex-quay, duty paid, had used 6,5 % for all
imports. The cif value was recalculated accordingly, which did not,
however, change the range for the undercutting margin for importsoriginating in Belarus mentioned in recital 46 of the provisionalRegulation.
(38) Since the customs duty applicable for imports originating in Russia
also changed in 1999, the undercutting margin for imports originating
in Russia was also accordingly recalculated. The revised weightedaverage price undercutting expressed as a percentage of theCommunity industry’ s prices amounts to 6,5 %. Otherwise, the
methodology set out in recital 46 of the provisional duty Regulation is
confirmed.
3.Situation of the Community industry
(39) Certain parties submitted that for the injury analysis the situation in
1995 should be compared to that in the investigation period, and notthe situation in 1997 to that in the investigation period. In this respect it
should be clarified that material injury in the investigation period is
one of the conditions to be fulfilled before anti-dumping measures canbe taken. It should be noted that the Basic Regulation does not requireinjury to occur throughout the whole period covering the examination
of injury. Indeed this would amount to a requirement that the situation
of the Community industry must have been continuously deterioratingover a period of four to five years before measures could be imposed.In order to establish whether such injury exists, inter alia , the
preceding years and the developments and trends found between them
and the investigation period serve as reference. In the current case, theinvestigation covered the period between 1995 and the investigationperiod and not just 1995 and the investigation period as suggested by
these parties. Taking into account developments throughout this
period, a marked deterioration of the situation of the Community!B2000R1995 — EN — 23.09.2000 — 000.001 — 8
industry has been found in particular between 1997 and the
investigation period. In view of the above, the provisional findingsas regards the material injury suffered by the Community industry aretherefore confirmed.
G. CAUSATION
(40) Certain exporting producers submitted that the Commission under-
estimated the impact of the Chinese decision to ban imports of urea as
from April 1997 on the worldwide oversupply. In this respect it shouldbe noted that the existence or not of a situation of oversupply, whatever
its importance, does not provide a justification for dumped imports
causing injury to the Community industry. Therefore, in the absence ofany new information, the findings as described in recitals 62 and 63 ofthe provisional Regulation are confirmed.
H. COMMUNITY INTEREST
(41) In the absence of any new information the provisional findings as
described in recitals 64 to 69 of the provisional Regulation are
confirmed.
I.ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
1.Termination of the proceeding in respect of the Slovak
Republic
(42) In the light of the conclusions set out in recital 60 of the provisional
Regulation, i.e. that no price undercutting has been found, that theimport volume was relatively low and the market share small andstable, the proceeding concerning imports originating in the Slovak
Republic is hereby terminated without the imposition of measures.
2.Injury elimination level
(43) For the purposes of establishing the level of definitive measures to be
imposed, it is confirmed that the prices of the dumped imports shouldbe increased to a level where injurious dumping is eliminated.
(44) The complainant submitted that a profit margin of 5 % was not
realistic and that a higher level of profit should be used in determininga non-injurious price level. However, as a profit margin of 5 % has
been used in previous anti-dumping cases concerning solutions of
UAN and in the absence of elements pointing to a change incircumstances requiring a new evaluation, it is concluded that a margin
of 5 % remains an appropriate level of profit.
(45) Furthermore, the methodology used for establishing the injury margin
as described in recital 70 of the provisional Regulation was confirmed.
(46) The injury margin for Belarus was revised to take into account the fact
that the customs duty applicable for imports originating in Belarus was
6,8 % in 1998 and 6,5 % in 1999 while, as mentioned above, theCommission, in the calculation of the cif Community frontier value,ex-quay, duty paid, used 6,5 % for all imports. The cif value was
recalculated accordingly. The new injury margin for imports originat-
ing in Belarus is 27,5 %.
(47) Since the customs duty applicable for imports originating in Russia
also changed in 1999, the injury margins for imports originating inRussia were also accordingly recalculated. Furthermore, sinceindividual treatment was granted to one Russian exporting producer,
an individual injury margin was calculated accordingly. The new injury
margins for imports originating in Russia however remain below thedumping margins found.
3.Undertakings
(48) The undertaking accepted at the provisional stage from the Algerian
exporting producer was revised in order to adjust the minimum import
price on the basis of the definitive findings for the producer (seerecitals 9 to 12 above).!B2000R1995 — EN — 23.09.2000 — 000.001 — 9
Undertakings offered by the two cooperating Russian companies were
rejected. One was rejected because the company concerned was not anexporting producer from whom such undertaking could be accepted,but an intermediate trader, purchasing the product concerned from a
non-cooperating producer and selling it to a related company for
export. The other undertaking offer was rejected because the companyis an integrated producer of fertilisers, and therefore has a wide rangeof marketing options open to it when faced with measures on one of its
products. It should be stressed that in these circumstances, the
monitoring of the undertakings would have proved impracticable.
The undertaking offered by the cooperating Belarus exporting
producer was rejected on similar grounds.
4.Form and level of the definitive measures
(49) In the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with
Article 7(2) of the Basic Regulation, definitive anti-dumping dutiesshould be imposed at the level of the injury margins found, which are
lower than the dumping margins. For the reasons set out in recitals 15
and 19 of the provisional Regulation, it is confirmed that the residualduties for Algeria and Lithuania should be set at the level establishedrespectively for the sole producer in each country.
(50) In order to ensure the efficiency of the measures and to discourage the
price manipulation which has been observed in some previous
proceedings involving fertilisers, it is confirmed that the duties should
be imposed in the form of a specific amount per tonne. These dutiesamount to:
Country Dumping marginBasis for anti-dumping
dutyAmount of duty
(per tonne)
Algeria
— Fertalge Industries 9,7 9,7 EUR 6,88
Belarus 55,0 27,5 EUR 17,86
Lithuania— JSC Achema 5,8 5,8 EUR 3,98Russia
— JSC Nevinnomyssky Azot 28,5 27,4 EUR 17,80
— All other companies 41,0 32,0 EUR 20,11Ukraine 50,4 45,7 EUR 26,17
(51) The individual company anti-dumping duty rate specified in this
Regulation was established on the basis of the findings of the presentinvestigation. Therefore, it reflects the situation found during that
investigation with respect to this company. This duty rate (as opposed
to the country-wide duty applicable to ‘all other companies’) is thusexclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the countryconcerned and produced by the company and thus by the specific legal
entity mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company
not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation withits name and address, including entities related to those specifically
mentioned, cannot benefit from this rate and shall be subject to the
duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.
(52) Any claim requesting the application of this individual company
anti-dumping duty rate (e.g. following a change in the name of the
entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities)should be addressed to the Commission (
1) forthwith with all relevant
information, in particular any modification in the company’ s activities!B
(1) European Commission
Directorate-General Trade
Directorate C
DM 24 - 8/38
Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200
B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel2000R1995 — EN — 23.09.2000 — 000.001 — 10
linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with e.g.
that name change or that change in the production and sales entities.The Commission, if appropriate, will, after consultation of theAdvisory Committee, amend the Regulation accordingly by updating
the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.
J.COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTIES
(53) In view of the extent of the dumping margins found and in the light of
the level of the injury caused to the Community industry, it is
considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of theprovisional anti-dumping duty, imposed by Regulation (EC) No617/2000, should be definitively collected at the rate of the duty
definitively imposed,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of mixtures
of urea and ammonium nitrate in aqueous or ammoniacal solution fallingwithin CN code 3102 80 00 and originating in Algeria, Belarus, Lithuania,Russia and Ukraine.
2. The amount of duty in euro per tonne shall be as shown below for the
countries concerned:
Country CompanyAmount of duty
(per tonne)TARIC additional code
Algeria All companies EUR 6,88 A999
Belarus All companies EUR 17,86 —Lithuania All companies EUR 3,98 —Russia JSC Nevinnomyssky Azot
357030 Russian Federation,
Stavropol region
Nevinnomyssk, Nizyaev st. 1EUR 17,80 A176
All other companies EUR 20,11 A999
Ukraine All companies EUR 26,17 —
3. In cases where goods have been damaged before entry into free
circulation and, therefore, the price actually paid or payable is apportioned for
the determination of the customs value pursuant to Article 145 of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1), the amount of anti-dumping
duty, calculated on the basis of the amounts set above, shall be reduced by apercentage which corresponds to the apportioning of the price actually paid or
payable.
4. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the definitive duty shall not apply to
imports released for free circulation in accordance with the provisions of
Article 2.
5. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs
duties shall apply.
6. The proceeding concerning imports of solutions of urea and ammonium
nitrate originating in the Slovak Republic shall be terminated.
Article 2
1. Imports pursuant to the undertaking offered by:!B
(1) OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 40.2000R1995 — EN — 23.09.2000 — 000.001 — 11
Company Country TARIC additional code
Fertalge Industries spa
12, Chemin AEK GadoucheHydra
AlgerAlgeria A107
and accepted by the Commission, when released for free circulation, shall be
exempted from the anti-dumping duty set in Article 1(2) when they aremanufactured and directly exported and invoiced to an importing company in
the Community by the company mentioned above and declared under the
appropriate TARIC additional code.
2. The exemption shall be conditional upon presentation to the relevant
Member State’s customs services of a valid undertaking invoice issued by theexporting company containing the essential elements listed in the Annex toRegulation (EC) No 617/2000.
Article 3
The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to
Regulation (EC) No 617/2000 on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium
nitrate originating in Algeria, Belarus, Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine shall be
collected at the rate of the duty definitively imposed. Amounts secured inexcess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duties shall be released.
"C1Where the rate of the definitive duty imposed is higher than the rate of
the provisional duty, only the amount secured at the level of the provisional
duty shall be definitively collected. 3
Article 4
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in
theOfficial Journal of the European Communities .
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all
Member States.!B2000R1995 — EN — 23.09.2000 — 000.001 — 12