2000R1995 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 1
This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
►B COUNCILREGULATION(EC)No1995/2000
of18September2000
imposingadefinitiveanti-dumpingdutyandcollecting definitively theprovisionaldutiesimposed
onimportsofsolutionsofureaandammoniumnitrateoriginatinginAlgeria,Belarus,Lithuania,Russia and Ukraine, and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports origi-
natingintheSlovakRepublic
(OJ L 238, 22.9.2000, p. 15)
Amended by:
Official Journal
No page date
►M1Council Regulation (EC) No 1675/2003 of 22 September 2003 L 238 4 25.9.2003
Corrected by:
►C1Corrigendum, OJ L 63, 3.3.2001, p. 67 (1995/2000)
▼B
COUNCILREGULATION(EC)No1995/2000
of18September2000
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively
the provisional duties imposed on imports of solutions of urea andammonium nitrate originating in Algeria, Belarus, Lithuania,Russia and Ukraine, and terminating the anti-dumpingproceeding
inrespect ofimportsoriginatingintheSlovakRepublic
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 notmembersof 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 617/2000 (2) (the
‘provisional Regulation’) imposed a provisional anti-dumpingduty on importsof s olutionsof urea and ammonium nitrate(UAN) falling within CN code 3102 80 00 and originating inAlgeria, Belarus, Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine and accepted,
on a provisional basis, an undertaking offered by an exporting
producer in Algeria.
(2)In the same Regulation, it was provisionally concluded that noanti-dumping duty should be imposed on imports of the productconcerned originating in the Slovak Republic, also subject to thesame investigation, since these imports were not found to havecaused material injury to the Community industry.
B.SUBSEQUENTPROCEDURE
(3)Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considera-
tions on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisionalmeasures on imports of solutions of UAN originating in Algeria,Belarus, Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine (‘disclosure’), several
interested parties submitted comments in writing. The parties
who so requested were also granted an opportunity to be heardorally.
(4)The Commission continued to seek and verify all information itdeemed necessary for its definitive findings.
(5)All parties were informed of the essential facts and considera-
tionson the bas isof which it wasintended to recommend the
imposition 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.
(6)The oral and written commentss ubmitted by the partieswereconsidered, and, where appropriate, the provisional findingshave been modified accordingly.
C.PRODUCTCONCERNEDANDLIKEPRODUCT
(7)Asoutlined in recital 8 of the provis ional Regulation, the
product concerned iss olutionsof UAN, a liquid nitrogen ferti-liser used in agriculture. Whatever their nitrogen content, all2000R1995 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 2
(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation aslas t amended by Regulation (EC) No
905/98 (OJ L 128, 30.4.1998, p. 18).
(2) OJ L 75, 24.3.2000, p. 3.
▼B
solutions of UAN are considered to have the same basic physical
and chemical characteristics and therefore constitute a singleproduct for the purpose of this investigation.
(8)In view of the above and since no new arguments were putforward by any of the partiesconcerned with res pect to theCommission's provisional findings on the product concerned
and the considerations made on the like product, the facts and
findings as set out in recitals 8 and 9 of the provisional Regula-tion are confirmed.
D.DUMPING
1.Algeria
(a)Normal value
(9)The cooperating exporting producer claimed that itscos t of
production had been miscalculated because the Commission hadnot taken into account the fact that no import duty waspaid onimported raw materialsus ed in manufacturing the product
concerned for export. It also claimed that the Commission had
incorrectly determined the transport costs from the factory tothe port.
(10)Both claimswere examined. Asfar asthe import duty is
concerned, the claim wasfound to be correct. The cons tructed
normal value wastherefore recalculated taking into account thiselement. With regard to transport costs, the claim was rejected,since no information to support it had been provided. Theremaining findingson normal value, ass et out in recitals11and 12 of the provisional Regulation, are confirmed.
(b)Export price, comparison
(11)In the absence of any comments under these headings, the provi-
sional findings, as set out in recitals 13 and 14 of the provisionalRegulation, 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 isconfirmed. On this basis, the definitive dumping margin for thecooperating exporting producer, expressed as a percentage of thecif Community frontier price, isnow 9,7 %.
Since the sole known exporting producer accounted for all
Algerian exportsof 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 provi-
sional findings, claiming that its normal value, which had beenconstructed in the absence of domestic sales of the productconcerned, was too high and had resulted in an excessive
dumping margin (7,6 %). In particular, it claimed that itss elling,
general and administrative (SG & A) expenses had been over-stated and that these same expenses had been taken from adifferent set of accounts (the audited accounts for 1998) to thatused for calculating the manufacturing cost (internal manage-ment accountscovering the inves tigation 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 amountsfor SG & A expens eshad to bedetermined in accordance with Article 2(6) of Regulation (EC)2000R1995 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 3
▼B
No 384/96 (hereafter referred to asthe ‘Bas ic Regulation’). As
there were no other Lithuanian producerswhos e SG & Aamounts could be used, the sole Lithuanian producer's SG & A
amountswere determined for ‘the s ame general category of
products for the exporter or producer in question in the domesticmarket of the company of origin’. In thisregard, it s hould bementioned that the company did not originally provide any infor-mation at all on itsglobal SG & A expens esin itsreply to the
questionnaire. In fact, this information was provided following a
deficiency letter by the Commission but when sent was not onlyincorrect, but incomplete in that financial expenses had beenomitted. It had therefore been considered appropriate to makeuse of a reliable source of information (the 1998 auditedaccounts) for the purposes of the provisional determination.
(15)Following the publication of the provisional Regulation, theSG & A expenses were recalculated on the basis of the sameinternal management accountswhich had been us ed in the provi-
sional findings to determine the manufacturing cost of the
product concerned. The Commission requested further clarifica-tion of the company'sfiguresand reviewed all the information ithad obtained since the beginning of the investigation. It reachedthe conclusion that the figures provided a basis which was
indeed reliable enough to be used. As a result of the recalcula-
tion 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 metho-
dology had led to a number of inconsistencies due to the factthat the accounts used for the determination of SG & A expenseswere incomplete or inaccurate. Regarding thisgeneral comment,
it should be noted that these were the same accounts used for the
determination of the cost of manufacturing, and had not beencontested by the company at the provisional stage — indeed,the company had argued strongly that these accounts shouldalso be used for determining the SG & A expenses.
The company then made a number of specific claims. Firstly, it
claimed that the internal management accountscovering the
investigation period understated both its total and its domesticturnover. The claim wasrejected becaus e the company had hadsufficient opportunity since the beginning of the investigation toprovide a complete and accurate picture of itss ituation. It hadmade no mention of the possible inaccuracy of the figures it
had provided until it had decided to contest the definitive find-
ingsand even then did not provide an explanation for theturnover discrepancies.
Secondly, the company claimed that itsexport SG & A cos ts
were understated in the management accounts because the latterdid not include SG & A costs for exports to markets other than
the Community; consequently, the Commission should have
deducted a larger amount from itstotal SG & A cos tsin orderto arrive at the correct amount for domestic SG & A. This claimwas rejected because the costs in question represented an extre-mely high proportion of the income from export sales to these
other markets, compared with exports to the Community, and
because no mention of this inconsistency had been made earlierin the proceeding and no explanation for the failure to includethese expenses being missing in the management accounts hadbeen provided.
Thirdly, the company claimed that some of its financial expenses
were not attributable to the production of UAN since a large part
of its business consisted of holding activities. Here it should bepointed out that fertiliser production accounts for the vast bulkof the company's business and, moreover, that the companyfailed to include any data on financial expenses in its reply tothe questionnaire, arguing that no such expenses were attribu-2000R1995 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 4
▼B
table to UAN. It is considered that all expenses which are not
directly attributable to a particular product should nonethelessbe attributed and that, in the absence of any more reasonable
approach, turnover is an appropriate basis for allocation of these
expenses. This claim was therefore rejected, except in respect of‘financial brokerage expenses’, which, it was found, did not needto be taken into account since they would have had no impact onthe definitive findings.
Fourthly, it wasclaimed that the general and adminis trative
expenses (G & A) should only have been included insofar as
they related to production activities. The company produced a
table containing figuresprepared on thisbas isby itsexternalauditors. This claim was rejected because the auditors, in a letterto which the table was attached, had expressly declined to givean 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 claim contesting theallocation of G & A expenses incurred in connection withtrading activities, and for which no supporting evidence wasprovided, wasals o rejected.
(17)The complainant, the European Fertilisers Manufacturers' Asso-ciation (EFMA), also made comments on the method ofconstructing normal value for the Lithuanian producer andclaimed that the Commission should have made adjustments inrespect of:
— depreciation rates, on the grounds that those applied by the
producer were too low and were not in line with thoseapplied in Western Europe, and by the Community industryin particular,
— fixed asset valuations, on the grounds that the producer's
assets were not valued in accordance with internationalaccounting standards,
— the gas price, judged to be too low, charged by the Russian
gas supplier, resulting in an abnormally low cost of produc-tion. The complainant suggested that the Commissionrecalculate the producer's gas costs on the basis of figures
obtained from a Community gas supplier showing what was
considered to be the lowest reasonable price the Lithuanianproducer could be expected to have paid for gasin the inves -tigation period.
All three claimswere examined. Asfar asconcernsdepreciation,
most, but by no means all, of the rates used by the Lithuanianproducer were longer than those used by Community producers,
but were nonetheless mostly within the range of variation found
in the Community; however, the depreciation charge, asapercentage of the cost of production, was not significantlydifferent from that typically found in the Community industry.Moreover, the rateswere in line with Lithuanian accountingpractices. 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 theproceeding and it had been concluded that there wasno evidenceto suggest that the prices charged were not reliable, or did notreflect the true cost of supply. Moreover, the price paid for gas
by the Lithuanian producer wasfound not to be lower than the
price advanced by the complainant. Thisclaim, too, wasthere-fore rejected.
(b)Export price, comparison
(18)In the absence of any comments under these headings, the provi-
sional findings, as set out in recitals 17 and 18 of the provisionalRegulation, are confirmed.2000R1995 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 5
▼B
(c)Dumping margin
(19)In the absence of any comments concerning the methodology
used for the calculation of the dumping margin, the methodologydescribed in recital 19 of the provisional Regulation isconfirmed. On this basis, the definitive dumping margin for the
cooperating exporting producer, taking into account the changes
mentioned above, and expressed as a percentage of the cifCommunity frontier price, is5,8 %.
Since the sole known exporting producer accounted for all
Lithuanian exportsof 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 asmarket economy third country, the provis ional
conclusion as set out in recital 22 of the provisional Regulation
isconfirmed.
(b)Russia
(i) Individual treatment
(21)One cooperating exporting producer requested that its claim for
individual treatment be reconsidered on the grounds that, with
respect to its export sales, it was not subject to any interferenceby the State. In support of this claim, it advanced the followingarguments:
— the conditionsand termsof itsexport s aleswere determined
freely,
— the company's supervisory board was elected annually by the
shareholders, the majority of whom were private companiesor individuals. All but one of the board's members were inde-pendent 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
areashaving a direct impact on the company'sexport activities .
On this basis, it considered that the arguments put forward bythe company were valid, and, since it was also considered thatthe level of state interference was not such as to permit circum-vention of measures if exporters are given different rates of duty,
the company'sclaim hasbeen accepted.
(23)The complainant objected strongly to the granting of individual
treatment to thisproducer at the definitive s tage, given that the
Commission had rejected the request at the provisional stage on
the groundsthat it was‘not s ufficiently free of State influence’.This fact alone should have been enough to stop the Commissionreversing its decision. It argued that the Russian State'sdiscounting of gas prices gave its fertiliser producers an unfaircompetitive advantage and that their export sales could therefore
not be considered to be truly market-based transactions. It also
expressed concern about the increased potential for circumven-tion of the duties, because the individual margin was slightlylower 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 findingsare reached.Whilst it remained true that the State had an influence in thesetting of gas prices, the determination of normal value on thebasis of constructed value in the analogue country rendered thisargument irrelevant. Moreover, the company had been found to2000R1995 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 6
▼B
be free to decide what quantitiesto export and at what prices . In
any event, accepting thisargument would be tantamount todenying individual treatment to all companieswhich 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).Asto the added ris k of circumvention, reference ismade torecital 23 dealing with the independence of the Russian companyconcerned 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-exporting country frontier) basis. It argued that the use of thismethod had distorted the findings because it did not adequatelytake into account the differences in internal transport costs in
market and non-market economy countries, and that if the
comparison had been made on an ex-works basis, the dumpingmargin 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 isfob or ex-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 examinationof the arguments, it is considered that the fob comparison doesindeed give an undue advantage to companieswhos e geogra-phical location, if they were located in a market economycountry, would prohibit them from exporting bulk products, and
hastherefore, for the purpos esof the definitive determination,
changed the basis of the comparison from fob to ex-works. Theappropriate adjustments were therefore made to the export pricein respect of the costs for transport from ex-works to port andfor port services.
(iii) Dumping margin
(25)The individual dumping margin for the cooperating exporting
producer granted individual treatment, and the countrywidedumping margin for all other producerswere recalculated us ingthe revised normal value of the Lithuanian producer (see recitals13 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 weremade to the export price in respect of the costs for transportfrom ex-works to port and for port services.
(ii) Dumping margin
(27)The dumping margin for Belaruswasrecalculated us ing the
revised normal value of the Lithuanian producer (see recitals 13to 15).
(28)The cooperating exporting producer claimed that it had not beengiven adequate disclosure of the provisional findings and there-fore had been prevented from making any substantive ormeaningful comment on the dumping margin calculation. Inaddition, it claimed that the quantitiesexported had been mis cal-2000R1995 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 7
▼B
culated because returns had not been taken into account and
because some of the UAN exported had a nitrogen content of30 % 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 provis ional findingsisconcerned, it iscons id-
ered that the information provided was the maximum possible
without breaching the duty of confidentiality to the sole Lithua-nian producer in respect of its own normal value.
(30)With regard to the other claims, the available information wasreviewed and the export quantitiesadjus ted. Asregardsthecalculation of the cif value, the methodology adopted in theprovisional Regulation is confirmed.
(31)In the absence of any other comments concerning the determina-tion of the dumping margin, the methodology set out in recital31 of the provisional duty Regulation is confirmed. On thisbasis, the countrywide dumping margin, expressed as a percen-
tage of the cif Community frontier price, is55,0 %.
(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 weremade to the export price in respect of the costs for transport
from ex-works to port and for port services.
(ii) Dumping margin
(33)The Commission recalculated the Ukrainian dumping margin
using the revised normal value of the Lithuanian producer (see
recitals13 to 15).
On this basis, the countrywide dumping margin, expressed as a
percentage of the cif Community frontier price, is50,4 %.
E.DEFINITIONOFTHECOMMUNITYINDUSTRY
(34)In the absence of any comments or new information the provi-
sional findings as described in recitals 35 and 36 of theprovisional Regulation on the definition of the Communityindustry are confirmed.
F.INJURY
1.Cumulation
(35)The complainant questioned the decumulation of the Slovak
Republic, without however submitting any new information. Inthisres pect it isunderlined, in particular, that both the volumesand market shares of the imports originating in the SlovakRepublic were the lowest of all countries concerned and that
their prices did not undercut those of the Community industry.
The provisional findings regarding the appropriateness of thedecumulation of importsoriginating in the Slovak Republic aretherefore confirmed.
(36)The Algerian exporting producer submitted that imports origi-nating in Algeria should be assessed separately, on the groundsof a low dumping margin, a small average market share and asmall undercutting margin. In this respect, it should be outlinedthat the dumping margin for the importsoriginating in Algeria is
above the de minimis level and the volume of these imports
during the investigation period is not negligible. Furthermore,asto the conditionsof competition, there wasan upward trendin the volume of imports, the price behaviour of the Algerianexporting producer wascomparable to that of the other exportingproducersin the other countriesconcerned and price undercut-2000R1995 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 8
▼B
ting was found for these imports which used the same channels
of trade. For these reasons, and in accordance with Article 3(4)of the Basic Regulation, the provisional 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 importsoriginating in Belaruswas6,8 % in
1998 and 6,5 % in 1999 while the Commission, in the calcula-tion of the cif Community frontier value, ex-quay, duty paid, hadused 6,5 % for all imports. The cif value was recalculatedaccordingly, which did not, however, change the range for theundercutting margin for importsoriginating in Belarus
mentioned in recital 46 of the provisional Regulation.
(38)Since the customs duty applicable for imports originating in
Russia also changed in 1999, the undercutting margin forimports originating in Russia was also accordingly recalculated.The revised weighted average price undercutting expressed as apercentage of the Community industry's prices amounts to 6,5 %.
Otherwise, the methodology set out in recital 46 of the provi-
sional duty Regulation is confirmed.
3.SituationoftheCommunityindustry
(39)Certain parties submitted that for the injury analysis the situation
in 1995 should be compared to that in the investigation period,and not the situation in 1997 to that in the investigation period.In this respect it should be clarified that material injury in theinvestigation period is one of the conditions to be fulfilled beforeanti-dumping measures can be taken. It should be noted that the
Basic Regulation does not require injury to occur throughout the
whole period covering the examination of injury. Indeed thiswould amount to a requirement that the situation of the Commu-nity industry must have been continuously deteriorating over aperiod of four to five years before measures could be imposed.
In order to establish whether such injury exists, inter alia , the
preceding yearsand the developmentsand trendsfound betweenthem and the investigation period serve as reference. In thecurrent case, the investigation covered the period between 1995and the investigation period and not just 1995 and the investiga-tion period as suggested by these parties. Taking into account
developmentsthroughout thisperiod, a marked deterioration of
the situation of the Community industry has been found in parti-cular between 1997 and the investigation period. In view of theabove, the provisional findings as regards the material injurysuffered by the Community industry are therefore confirmed.
G.CAUSATION
(40)Certain exporting producers submitted that the Commission
underestimated the impact of the Chinese decision to banimportsof urea asfrom April 1997 on the worldwide over-
supply. In this respect it should be noted that the existence or
not of a situation of oversupply, whatever its importance, doesnot provide a justification for dumped imports causing injury tothe Community industry. Therefore, in the absence of any newinformation, the findingsasdes cribed in recitals62 and 63 ofthe provisional Regulation are confirmed.
H.COMMUNITYINTEREST
(41)In the absence of any new information the provisional findings
as described in recitals 64 to 69 of the provisional Regulationare confirmed.2000R1995 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 9
▼B
I.ANTI-DUMPINGMEASURES
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 provi-sional Regulation, i.e. that no price undercutting has been found,that the import volume wasrelatively low and the market s haresmall and stable, the proceeding concerning imports originatingin the Slovak Republic ishereby terminated without the impos i-
tion of measures.
2.Injuryelimination level
(43)For the purposes of establishing the level of definitive measures
to be imposed, it is confirmed that the prices of the dumpedimports should be increased to a level where injurious dumping
iseliminated.
(44)The complainant submitted that a profit margin of 5 % was not
realistic and that a higher level of profit should be used in deter-mining a non-injuriousprice level. However, asa profit marginof 5 % has been used in previous anti-dumping cases concerningsolutions of UAN and in the absence of elements pointing to achange in circumstances requiring a new evaluation, it is
concluded that a margin of 5 % remainsan appropriate level of
profit.
(45)Furthermore, the methodology used for establishing the injurymargin as described in recital 70 of the provisional Regulationwasconfirmed.
(46)The injury margin for Belaruswasrevis ed to take into accountthe fact that the customs duty applicable for imports originating
in Belaruswas6,8 % in 1998 and 6,5 % in 1999 while, as
mentioned above, the Commission, in the calculation of the cifCommunity frontier value, ex-quay, duty paid, used 6,5 % forall imports. The cif value was recalculated accordingly. Thenew injury margin for importsoriginating in Belarusis27,5 %.
(47)Since the customs duty applicable for imports originating in
Russia also changed in 1999, the injury margins for imports
originating in Russia were also accordingly recalculated. Further-more, since individual treatment was granted to one Russianexporting producer, an individual injury margin wascalculatedaccordingly. The new injury marginsfor importsoriginating inRussia however remain below the dumping margins found.
3.Undertakings
(48)The undertaking accepted at the provisional stage from the
Algerian exporting producer was revised in order to adjust theminimum import price on the basis of the definitive findingsfor the producer (see recitals 9 to 12 above).
Undertakings offered by the two cooperating Russian companies
were rejected. One wasrejected becaus e the company concernedwasnot an exporting producer from whom s uch undertakingcould 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 offerwasrejected becaus e the company isan integrated producer offertilisers, and therefore has a wide range of marketing optionsopen to it when faced with measures on one of its products. It
should be stressed that in these circumstances, the monitoring
of the undertakingswould have proved impracticable.
The undertaking offered by the cooperating Belarusexporting
producer was rejected on similar grounds.2000R1995 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 10
▼B
4.Formandlevelofthedefinitivemeasures
(49)In the light of the foregoing, it iscons idered that, in accordance
with Article 7(2) of the Basic Regulation, definitive anti-dumping duties should be imposed at the level of the injury
marginsfound, which are lower than the dumping margins . For
the reasons set out in recitals 15 and 19 of the provisional Regu-lation, it isconfirmed that the res idual dutiesfor Algeria andLithuania should be set at the level established respectively forthe sole producer in each country.
(50)In order to ensure the efficiency of the measures and to discou-rage the price manipulation which has been observed in someprevious proceedings involving fertilisers, it is confirmed that
the duties should be imposed in the form of a specific amount
per tonne. These duties amount to:
CountryDumping
marginBasis for anti-
dumping dutyAmount of duty
(per tonne)
Algeria
— Fertalge Industries 9,7 9,7 EUR 6,88
Belarus55,0 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 companies41,0 32,0 EUR 20,11
Ukraine 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
present investigation. Therefore, it reflects the situation found
during that investigation with respect to this company. Thisduty rate (asoppos ed to the country-wide duty applicable to‘all other companies’) is thus exclusively applicable to importsof productsoriginating in the country concerned and producedby the company and thusby the s pecific legal entity mentioned.
Imported productsproduced by any other company not s pecifi-
cally mentioned in the operative part of thisRegulation with itsname and address, including entities related to those specificallymentioned, cannot benefit from this rate and shall be subject tothe duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.
(52)Any claim requesting the application of this individual companyanti-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 inthe company'sactivitieslinked to production, domes tic andexport sales associated with e.g. that name change or that changein the production and sales entities. The Commission, if appro-
priate, will, after consultation of the Advisory Committee,
amend the Regulation accordingly by updating the list of compa-niesbenefiting from individual duty rates .2000R1995 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 11
(1) European Commission
Directorate-General Trade
Directorate C
DM 24 - 8/38
Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200
B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel
▼B
J.COLLECTIONOFTHEPROVISIONALDUTIES
(53)In view of the extent of the dumping marginsfound and in the
light of the level of the injury caused to the Communityindustry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured byway of the provisional anti-dumping duty, imposed by Regula-tion (EC) No 617/2000, should be definitively collected at the
rate of the duty definitively imposed,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty ishereby impos ed on importsof
mixturesof urea and ammonium nitrate in aqueousor ammoniacal
solution falling within 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 countriesconcerned:
Country CompanyAmount of duty
(per tonne)TARIC additional
code
Algeria All companiesEUR 6,88 A999
BelarusAll companies EUR 17,86 —
Lithuania All companiesEUR 3,98 A999Russia JSC Nevinnomyssky Azot
357030 Russian Federation,
Stavropol region
Nevinnomyssk, Nizyaev st. 1EUR 17,80 A176
All other companiesEUR 20,11 A999
Ukraine All companiesEUR 26,17 —
3. In cases where goods have been damaged before entry into free
circulation and, therefore, the price actually paid or payable isappor-tioned for the determination of the customs value pursuant to Article145 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 a percentage which corresponds to the apportioningof the price actually paid or payable.
4. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the definitive duty shall not apply
to importsreleas ed for free circulation in accordance with the provi-sions of Article 2.
5. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning
customs duties shall apply.
6. The proceeding concerning importsof s olutionsof urea and
ammonium nitrate originating in the Slovak Republic shall be termi-nated.
Article 2
1. Importsdeclared for releas e into free circulation under the
following TARIC additional codeswhich are produced and directlyexported (i.e. shipped and invoiced) by a company named below to acompany in the Community acting asan importer s hall be exempt2000R1995 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 12
(1) OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 40.▼M1
▼B
▼M1
▼M1
from the anti-dumping duty imposed by Article 1 provided that such
importsare imported in conformity with paragraph 2 of thisArticle.
Country CompanyTARIC additional
code
Algeria Fertalge Industries spa
12, Chemin AEK Gadouche
Hydra
AlgerA107
Lithuania Stock Company Achema
Jonalaukio k.,Rukloss en.,
Jonavosr.
LT-5005A375
2. The exemption shall be conditional upon presentation to the rele-
vant Member State's customs services of a valid undertaking invoice
issued by the exporting company containing the essential elements
listed in the Annex to Regulation (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 ofurea and ammonium nitrate originating in Algeria, Belarus, Lithuania,Russia and Ukraine shall be collected at the rate of the duty defini-tively imposed. Amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate of
anti-dumping duties shall be released. ►
C1Where the rate of the defi-
nitive duty imposed is higher than the rate of the provisional duty, onlythe amount secured at the level of the provisional duty shall be defini-tively collected. ◄
Article 4
ThisRegulation s hall enter into force on the day following itspublica-
tion in the Official Journal of the European Communities .
ThisRegulation s hall be binding in itsentirety and directly applicable
in all Member States.2000R1995 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 13
▼B