2002R1339 — EN — 19.03.2004 — 002.001 — 1
This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
►B COUNCILREGULATION(EC)No1339/2002
of22July2002
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed
onimportsofsulphanilicacidoriginatinginthePeople'sRepublicofChinaandIndia
(OJ L 196, 25.7.2002, p. 11)
Amended by:
Official Journal
No page date
►M1Council Regulation (EC) No 236/2004 of 10 February 2004 L 40 17 12.2.2004
►M2Council Regulation (EC) No 492/2004 of 8 March2004 L 80 6 18.3.2004
▼B
COUNCILREGULATION(EC)No1339/2002
of22July2002
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively
the provisional duty imposed on imports of sulphanilic acid origi-
natinginthePeople's RepublicofChinaandIndia
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 9
thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after
consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A.PROVISIONALMEASURES
(1)The Commission by Regulation (EC) No 575/2002 (2) (‘provi-
sional Regulation’) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty onimports of sulphanilic acid originating in the People's Republic
of China (‘PRC’) and India. The Commission by Regulation
(EC) No 573/2002 (
3) (‘provisional anti-subsidy Regulation’)
also imposed a provisional countervailing duty on imports ofsulphanilic acid originating in India.
B.SUBSEQUENTPROCEDURE
(2)Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considera-
tions on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisionalanti-dumping measures, a number of interested parties submitted
comments in writing. All interested parties who requested a
hearing were granted an opportunity to be heard by the Commis-sion.
(3)The Commission continued to seek and verify all informationdeemed necessary for the definitive findings.
(4)All parties were informed of the essential facts and considera-tions on the basis of which it was intended to recommend theimposition of definitive anti-dumping duties and the definitivecollection of amounts secured by way of provisional duties.They were also granted a period within which they could makerepresentations subsequent to this disclosure.
(5)The oral and written arguments submitted by the parties weretaken into account.
(6)Having reviewed the provisional findings on the basis of theinformation gathered since then, it is concluded that the main
findings as set out in the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
C.PRODUCTCONCERNEDANDLIKEPRODUCT
1.Productconcerned
(7)Subsequent to the publication of the provisional Regulation, a
number of interested parties claimed that the definition of theproduct concerned was incorrect. They argued that the technical
and purified grades of sulphanilic acid were substantially
different in terms of their purity and had different propertiesand applications. It was claimed that the two grades of sulpha-2002R1339 — EN — 19.03.2004 — 002.001 — 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 87, 4.4.2002, p. 28.
(3) OJ L 87, 4.4.2002, p. 5.
▼B
nilic acid could not be considered as a homogeneous product and
should therefore have been treated as distinct products for thepurposes of the investigation. In support of this assertion, it was
argued that there was insufficient interchangeability between the
two grades of sulphanilic acid. Whilst it was accepted that thepurified grade could be used in all applications, the same couldnot be said of technical grade sulphanilic acid because of thelevel of impurities it contained, most notably aniline residues.
These impurities consequently made technical grade acid unsui-
table for use in the production of optical brighteners and fooddyes.
(8)It is recalled that purified grade sulphanilic acid results from thepurification of technical grade sulphanilic acid in a process
which removes certain impurities. This purification process does
not alter the molecular properties of the compound or the way inwhich it reacts with other chemicals. Therefore, technical andpurified grades share the same basic chemical characteristics.The fact that interchangeability may only be in one direction incertain applications because of concerns about impurities is
therefore not considered to be sufficient justification that purified
and technical grades constitute different products which shouldbe treated separately in two different investigations. Whilstaccepting that the purification process adds certain additionalcosts to the production process, it is recalled that these weretaken into account when making a fair comparison between the
different grades produced by the Community industry and those
imported from the countries concerned for the purposes of calcu-lating the level of price undercutting and the injury eliminationlevel.
(9)Consequently, it was not considered that the comments made by
interested parties concerning the definition of the product
concerned were sufficient to alter the findings on this issue thathad been reached at the provisional stage. It is therefore defini-tively concluded that both grades of sulphanilic acid should betreated as one single product for the purpose of the presentproceeding.
2.Likeproduct
(10)No new elements were brought to the attention of the Commis-
sion that would lead it to alter the conclusions reached at the
provisional stage, namely that sulphanilic acid produced and
sold by Community producers and that produced in the countriesconcerned and exported to the Community are like products.
(11)The provisional findings concerning the like product as set out inrecital 12 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
D.DUMPING
1.India
1.1. Normal value
(12)The Indian exporting producer contested the methodology for the
determination of the profit margin used in the construction of
normal value as set out in recital 18 of the provisional Regula-
tion. It claimed that the opening and closing stocks of the likeproduct should be taken into account in this determination.
(13)This claim was rejected because the company suggested takinginto account opening and closing stocks only in determining the
profit margin and not in determining the cost of manufacturing
used to calculate the constructed normal value. Thus, the use oftwo different costs of manufacturing for the same purpose cannotbe accepted. Moreover, the cost of manufacturing used in calcu-lating normal value in the provisional Regulation was thatincurred during the investigation period (‘IP’) and was consid-2002R1339 — EN — 19.03.2004 — 002.001 — 3
▼B
ered more appropriate since it is not affected by any ad hoc
valuation of stocks.
1.2. Export price
(14)The same company claimed that for the sales made via its
related importer, the export price should be constructed by using
the actual profit margin of its related importer. This claim could
not be accepted since the profit margin realised by the relatedimporter is based on transfer prices between associated parties(the company in question and its related importer) and as suchthese prices cannot be considered to be reliable in accordance
withArticle 2(9) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (‘basic Regula-
tion’).
(15)On the basis of the above, the findings set in recitals 19 to 21 ofthe provisional Regulation are confirmed.
1.3. Comparison
(16)No comments were received under this heading. The findings as
set out in recitals 22 to 26 of the provisional Regulation aretherefore confirmed.
1.4. Dumping margin
(17)As no comments were submitted justifying changes to the
dumping findings as set out in the provisional Regulation, thedumping margin (24,6 %) established in recital 29 of the provi-
sional Regulation is confirmed.
2.People'sRepublicofChina
2.1. Normal value
(18)As no new information was submitted under this heading, the
findings as set out in recitals 30 to 35 of the provisional Regula-tion are confirmed.
2.2. Export price
(19)As no new information was submitted under this heading, the
findings as set out in recitals 36 to 39 of the provisional Regula-tion are confirmed.
2.3. Comparison
(20)As no new information was submitted under this heading, the
findings as set out in recital 40 of the provisional Regulation
are confirmed.
2.4. Dumping margin
(21)The dumping margin (21,0 %) established in recitals 41 and 42
of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.
E.COMMUNITYINDUSTRY
(22)Following the publication of the provisional Regulation, a
number of interested parties queried the definition of theCommunity industry and its standing in terms of Article 5(4) ofthe basic Regulation. In particular, it was suggested that thecomplainant producer, Sorochimie Chime Fine did not have the
support of the second Community producer, Quimigal S.A. when
it lodged its complaint.
(23)It is recalled that whilst Quimigal was not a party to the originalcomplaint, it did express its support for the proceeding at theinitiation stage and has fully cooperated in the investigation. Inresponse to the claims of certain interested parties, it has alsoreiterated its support for the proceeding during the course of theinvestigation. Therefore, as no new elements were brought to the2002R1339 — EN — 19.03.2004 — 002.001 — 4
▼B
attention of the Commission that would lead it to alter its earlier
findings, the provisional findings concerning the definition of theCommunity industry and its standing as detailed in recital 44 of
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
F.INJURY
1.Preliminaryremarks
(24)Several interested parties questioned the way in which the
Commission had established figures for imports of sulphanilicacid into the Community, Community consumption and marketshares. They claimed that there had been insufficient disclosureof the Commission's findings regarding imports, in both volume
and value terms, and that consequently their rights of defence
had been impeded. It was noted that some of this informationwas also missing from the public version of the complaint withthe result that the complaint did not meet the standards detailedin Article 5(2) of the basic Regulation.
(25)It is to be noted that according to Article 19(1) of the basic
Regulation, information which is submitted in confidence by
parties to an investigation shall be treated as such by the investi-gation authority so long as the information concerned warrantssuch treatment. It is recalled that sulphanilic acid is manufac-tured by a relatively small number of producers around theworld. Consequently, it was not possible for reasons of confiden-
tiality to disclose precise information relating to imports of the
product into the Community, especially for those countrieswhere there is only one exporting producer. Therefore, for thepurposes of disclosure, indexed figures and explanatory narrativewere made available to interested parties concerning this and
related items.
(26)As none of the interested parties which raised the issue of insuf-
ficient disclosure were able to demonstrate that the informationmade available to them in a summarised form did not enablethem to defend their rights, their arguments in this respect hadto be rejected.
2.Importsconcerned
(27)One interested party suggested that the figure for the increase in
imports noted in the provisional Regulation was misleading. Itwas claimed that as a number of other producers had withdrawnfrom the market, users in the Community were obliged to
purchase sulphanilic acid on the world market, thereby leading
to the sharp rise in import volumes. This claim had to berejected for a number of reasons. In the first instance, no addi-tional evidence oncerning the level of imports was submitted soas to alter the findings reached at the provisional stage on this
point. Similarly, whilst it was acknowledged in recital 127 of
the provisional Regulation that imports were expected tocontinue to play a significant role in meeting demand in theCommunity, it was also noted that had the Community industrynot been subject to the injurious effects of the dumped imports,it would have been able to put into effect certain expansion
plans, thereby satisfying a larger part of Community demand. In
the light of the above, the provisional findings concerningimports into the Community from the countries concerned andtheir level of price undercutting as noted in recitals 47 to 54 ofthe provisional Regulation are confirmed.
3.SituationoftheCommunityindustry
(28)In accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the
examination of the impact of the dumped imports on theCommunity industry included an evaluation of all relevanteconomic factors and indices having a bearing on its state.2002R1339 — EN — 19.03.2004 — 002.001 — 5
▼B
(29)Subsequent to provisional disclosure, a number of interested
parties questioned the manner in which the Commission had
reached its provisional determination concerning injury ascertain indicators were showing positive developments. In parti-cular, it was suggested that the increase in the Communityindustry's production, sales and capacity utilisation during theanalysis period (1 January 1997 to 30 June 2001) proved that it
had not suffered injury. One interested party also claimed that
the Commission had failed to make a proper assessment ofwage costs as required by the Article 3(5) of the basic Regula-tion.
(30)It is recalled that according to Article 3(5) of the basic Regula-tion, none of the economic factors or indices listed in theaforementioned article shall necessarily be decisive in the deter-
mination of injury. It is indeed true that certain indicators
relating to quantities produced and sold by the communityindustry showed positive developments. This should be seen inthe light of the fact that Community consumption of sulphanilicacid increased by some 13 % during the analysis period and thatthere has been a reduction of the number of suppliers on the
market due to the closure of certain Community producers.
(31)More importantly, it should be recalled that the Community
industry suffered injury in the form of price depression and pricesuppression. In particular, its average selling price declinedsharply between 1997 and 1998, as the pressure exerted by theincreasing volume of the imports concerned on the marketbecame evident. Subsequently, although the Community industry
was able to increase its average selling price as demand on the
Community market also increased, it failed to achieve a levelwhich would enable it to cover its full cost of production andlosses continued to be incurred in the IP.
(32)Withregard to th e argument raised concerning wages, it is notedthat although the number of workers employed by Sorochimiedecreased during the analysis period, the average employment
cost per employee increased. This is due to the fact that there
was a change in the mix of employee during the period andalso to general wage inflation. Withregard to Quimigal, it is tobe noted that in the base year for the index (1998) the companywas not producing sulphanilic acid. When it began production in
1999, the workers were engaged full time in this activity with an
extra day being worked from 2000 onwards. Neither companynoted that the wages of those employed in sulphanilic acid activ-ities had been effected by the imports concerned. Therefore,wages were not considered to be an indicator of injury.
(33)In view of the above, the provisional findings that the Commu-nity industry suffered material injury within the meaning of
Article 3 of the basic Regulation, as detailed in recitals 57 to
76 of the provisional Regulation, are confirmed.
G.CAUSATION
1.General comments on the Commission's conclusions
regardingthecausationofinjury
(34)Certain interested parties argued that the Community industrywas itself partly responsible for the injury it had suffered.
Several parties questioned the quality of Sorochimie's manage-
ment, product and customer service and highlighted the fact ithad itself imported sulphanilic acid during the analysis period.One party also alleged that the injury suffered by Sorochimieshould be attributed to its other business activity (glue) which
experienced significant difficulties during the IP. With regard to
the situation of Quimigal, the second company forming part ofthe Community industry, it was argued that its decision to enterthe market with a low price strategy during its start-up phase hadalso contributed to the alleged injury. Finally, it was alsoclaimed that the Community industry had to meet stringent2002R1339 — EN — 19.03.2004 — 002.001 — 6
▼B
environmental regulations and had higher labour and transport
costs than exporting producers in India with the implication thatimports originating in that country had a competitive advantage
and were not made at injurious prices.
(35)The investigation showed that Sorochimie, despite its financial
difficulties linked to the excessively low prices prevailing on
the market, was able to gain new customers during the analysis
period and to adapt its products to meet their needs. Thecompany was obliged to purchase certain quantities of theproduct concerned during the analysis period in order to meetexisting customer requirements while its production equipment
was undergoing essential repairs. It cannot thus be considered
that Sorochimie contributed to its own injury Similarly, it isrecalled that any exceptional costs relating to the company'sdifficulties in its glue business have been excluded from thecurrent investigation as they are not linked to the productconcerned and thus are not reflected in the injury indicators
described in the provisional Regulation.
(36)It was noted in recital 85 of the provisional Regulation that
Quimigal's decision to enter the market was taken at a time
when prices for sulphanilic acid on the Community market
were higher. Quimigal was able to establish itself on the marketat a time of bothincreasing demand in th e Community andchanges in the number of suppliers of sulphanilic acid both inthe Community and outside. It was also noted that the companywas obliged to offer prices similar to those of the dumped
imports in order to establishitself on th e market and gain market
share in 1999 and 2000 in that its relatively small size meantthat it was a price taker rather than a price setter. Nevertheless,its market share decreased slightly in the IP as imports from thecountries concerned increased in volume. No indication has
therefore been found that the deterioration of the situation of
the Community industry is due to excessive intra Communityindustry competition.
(37)With regard to the allegedly higher costs that the Community
industry is obliged to meet in terms of complying withenviron-
mental regulations and other items, it should be recalled that thecompetitive advantage of the imports concerned was taken intoaccount in the determination of normal value. Consequently, theprovisional findings concerning causation as set out in recitals 88
and 89 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
H.COMMUNITYINTEREST
(38)Following the publication of the provisional Regulation, one
interested party questioned how the Commission could deter-mine, in the light of Sorochimie being in administration, that
the Community industry was viable and competitive. It is
recalled that Sorochimie was obliged to seek protection from itscreditors following certain difficulties in its glue business andother pressures in its sulphanilic acid activities. The CommercialCourt of Charleville Mézières has appointed an administrator to
oversee the company's trading activities and has granted the
company a period of time in which to prepare a restructuringplan. This period of time has recently been extended until 31January 2003. In the absence of other unforeseen events, thecompany should continue to be in existence for the immediatefuture and therefore be in a position to benefit from the imposi-
tion of definitive measures. Consequently, the provisional
findings that the imposition of measures is in the interest of theCommunity industry as noted in recital 100 of the provisionalRegulation are confirmed.
(39)A number of interested parties claimed that the Commission hadfailed to make an objective assessment of the situation of usersin not taking into account any increase in the Community indus-try's prices that would likely follow the imposition of measures.It was also claimed that measures ran counter to the Community2002R1339 — EN — 19.03.2004 — 002.001 — 7
▼B
interest as the production capacity of the Community industry
was insufficient to meet Community demand and a possibleduopolistic situation based on the two Community producers
could result from the closure of the market to imports from India
and the PRC.
(40)In respect of the claim that the Commission failed to takeaccount of the various interests in an objective manner whendetermining whether the imposition of measures ran counter tothe Community interest, it is recalled that at the provisionalstage, the Commission made a detailed analysis of each of the
main user sectors (optical brighteners, concrete additives and
dyes and colorant producers). This analysis included an assess-ment of the impact of measures on their costs on the basis thatthe prices of the imports concerned would increase in line withthe proposed measures. At the same time, due allowance wasmade in this calculation for a maximum possible increase in the
price of sulphanilic acid sold by the Community industry of 10 %
on the basis that its prices would increase to a level similar tothat of the imports concerned following the imposition ofmeasures taking into account that it was already operating at afairly high rate of capacity utilisation in the IP. As such, no
new elements were submitted by interested parties which would
alter the provisional findings concerning the possible increase inthe manufacturing costs of the different user industries.
(41)Regarding the supply and competition situation on the Commu-nity market, it is to be noted that the current production capacityof the Community industry could satisfy in the region of 50 % ofCommunity demand. In any event, the purpose of the measuresis not to close the market to imports from the countries
concerned but to ensure that they are made at non-dumped and
non-injurious prices. It is therefore expected that imports fromthird countries including India and the PRC will continue toenter the market. At the same time, measures should ensurecontinued sulphanilic acid production in the Community with
the result that users will have more choice and competition
between suppliers. It should also be stressed that the Communityindustry has plans to increase its output by investing in newfacilities if the capital expenditure can be justified. For this tooccur, the injurious effects of the dumped imports need to beremoved.
(42)In the light of the above, the provisional findings that the impo-sition of measures is not contrary to the interest of the
Community as noted in recital 130 of the provisional Regulation
is confirmed.
I.ANTI-DUMPINGMEASURES
1.Injuryeliminationlevel
(43)The methodology to establish the injury margin as set out at
recitals 131 to 133 of the provisional Regulation is herebyconfirmed.
2.Definitive measures
(44)Since for both India and the PRC the dumping margin has been
found to be lower than the injury elimination level, the definitive
duties to be imposed should correspond to the dumping marginsestablished, in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regula-tion.
(45)However, withregard to th e parallel anti-subsidy proceeding inrespect of India, in accordance withArticle 24(1) of CouncilRegulation (EC) No 2026/97 (
1) (‘the basic anti-subsidy Regula-
tion’) and Article 14(1) of the basic Regulation, no product shall2002R1339 — EN — 19.03.2004 — 002.001 — 8
(1) OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1.
▼B
be subject to bothanti-dumping and countervailing duties for th e
purpose of dealing withone and th e same situation arising fromdumping or export subsidisation. It is therefore necessary to
determine whether, and to what extent, the subsidy amounts and
the dumping margins arise from the same situation.
(46)Withregard to India, a definitive countervailing duty corre-sponding to the amount of subsidy, which was found to belower than the injury margin, was proposed in accordance withArticle 15(1) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation. Certain ofthe subsidy schemes investigated, which were found to be coun-tervailable in India, constituted export subsidies within the
meaning of Article 3(4)(a) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.
As such, these subsidies could only affect the export price of theIndian exporting producer, thus leading to an increased marginof dumping. In other words, the definitive dumping marginestablished for the sole cooperating Indian producer is partly
due to the existence of export subsidies. In these circumstances,
it is not considered appropriate to impose bothcountervailingand anti-dumping duties to the full extent of the relevant exportsubsidy amount and dumping margin definitively established.Therefore, the definitive anti-dumping duty should be adjustedto reflect the actual dumping margin remaining after the imposi-
tion of the definitive countervailing duty offsetting the effect of
the export subsidies. Consequently, the definitive anti-dumpingduty rate for India has been set at the level of the dumpingmargin (24,6 %) minus the rate of definitive countervailingduty of the export subsidies (6,3 %).
(47)The Government of India and the Indian exporting produceropposed this approach and claimed that the definitive anti-dumping duty should be reduced by the total level of subsidisa-
tion found (7,1 %) and not only by the amount export subsidies.
They argued that in practice any benefit may be used to cross-subsidise any area of activity the exporter so chooses, whichwould mean that if the subsidy is not used to lower the exportprices it should not be countervailed. Alternatively, they argued,
if the subsidy is used to lower domestic prices then only part of
that subsidy which enables unfair export pricing should be coun-tervailed.
(48)In this respect, it is noted that subsidies which are not contingentupon export performance (‘domestic subsidies’) are consideredto affect equally the export price and the normal value of theIndian exporting producer, which means that they have a neutraleffect on the margin of dumping. It is, therefore, concluded that
the amounts of domestic subsidies and the dumping margins do
not arise from the same situation and consequently no adjust-ment to the dumping duty is warranted from the existence ofsuchsubsidisation.
(49)For the PRC, the anti-dumping duty rate has been set at the levelof the dumping margin.
3.Definitivecollection ofprovisionalduties
(50)In view of the magnitude of the dumping found for the exporting
producers, and in the light of the seriousness of the injury causedto the Community industry, it is considered necessary that theamounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties shall
be collected at the rate of the duty definitively imposed.
J.UNDERTAKING
(51)The sole cooperating company in the PRC, Mancheng Gold Star
Chemical Industry Co., Ltd of Baoding (‘Mancheng’), has
proposed a joint undertaking together with the state controlledtrading company, Sinochem Hebei Import & Export Corporation.However, it is recalled that Mancheng was a producer which didnot meet the requirements to be granted individual treatmentbecause it was not licensed to export and all its exports were2002R1339 — EN — 19.03.2004 — 002.001 — 9
▼B
made via the said state controlled trading company. Moreover,
due to the very low level of cooperation obtained from exportingproducers in the PRC, the Commission is not a position to
consider further an undertaking proposed by a trading company
because of the high inherent risk of circumvention of such anundertaking. The Chinese parties concerned were informedaccordingly.
(52)Subsequent to the imposition of provisional measures, the solecooperating exporting producer in India of the product concerned
offered a price undertaking in accordance withArticle 8(1) of
the basic Regulation. By doing so, it agreed to sell the productconcerned at or above price levels which eliminate the injuriouseffects of dumping. The company will also provide the Commis-sion withregular and detailed information concerning its exports
to the Community, meaning that the undertaking can be moni-
tored effectively by the Commission. Furthermore, the salesstructure of the exporting producer is such that the Commissionconsiders that the risk of circumventing the agreed undertakingis limited.
(53)In view of this, the offer of an undertaking was accepted by theCommission in Decision 2002/611/EC (
1).
(54)In order to ensure the effective respect and monitoring of the
undertaking, when the request for release for free circulation
pursuant to the undertaking is presented to the relevant customsauthority, exemption from the duty should be conditional uponpresentation of a commercial invoice containing the informationlisted in the Annex to this Regulation which is necessary for
customs to ascertain that shipments correspond to the commer-
cial documents at the required level of detail. Where no suchinvoice is presented, or when it does not correspond to theproduct concerned presented to customs, the appropriate rate ofanti-dumping duty should instead be payable.
(55)It should be noted that in the event of a breach or withdrawal of
the undertaking or a suspected breach, an anti-dumping duty
may be imposed pursuant to Article 8(9) and (10) of the basicRegulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of
sulphanilic acid falling within CN codes ex 2921 4210 (TARIC code
2921 42 10*60) originating in the People's Republic of China andIndia.
2. The rate of definitive anti-dumping duty applicable, before duty,
to the net free-at-Community frontier price of the products described in
paragraph1, sh all be as follows:
CountryDefinitive duty
(%)
The People's Republic of China 33,7
India 18,32002R1339 — EN — 19.03.2004 — 002.001 — 10
(1) See page 36 of this Official Journal.▼M1
▼M2
4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning
customs duties shall apply.
Article 3
The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty
imposed pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 575/2002 shall be definitivelycollected at the rate of the duties definitively imposed on imports ofsulphanilic acid originating in the People's Republic of China and
India, as defined in that Regulation.
The amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping
duties shall be released.
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.2002R1339 — EN — 19.03.2004 — 002.001 — 11
▼B
▼M2
▼B
▼M2