1999R0194 — EN — 30.09.2001 — 001.001 — 1
This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
►B COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)No 194/1999
of 25 January 1999
imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of hardboard originating in Bulgaria, Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Russia and definitively collecting the provisional duties imposed
(OJ L 22, 29.1.1999, p. 16)
Amended by:
OfficialJournal
No page date
►M1 CouncilRegul ation (EC) No 1899/2001 of 27 September 2001 L 261 1 29.9.2001
▼B
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)No 194/1999
of 25 January 1999
imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of hardboard
originating in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and
Russia and definitively collecting the provisional duties imposed
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to CouncilRegul ation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December
1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not membersof the European Community (
1), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,
Having regard to the proposalsubmitted by the Commission after
consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1.Provisional measures
(1) Provisionalanti-dumping measures were imposed in the present
proceeding on 6 August 1998 by Regulation (EC) No 1742/98 (2)
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘ProvisionalRegul ation’). Under-takings were offered and accepted from the cooperating exportingproducers in all the countries concerned except Russia.
2.Subsequent procedure
(2) Following the imposition of the provisional measures, certain
exporting producers, importers and Community users of theproduct concerned submitted comments in writing. Those partieswho so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard.
(3) Since the publication of the Provisional Regulation, investigations
were carried out at the premises of the following companies
which are users of the product concerned in the manufacture ofdoors:
— Svedex BV, Netherlands,
— Swedoor, a division of Nobia Nordisk Bygginteriör AB,
Sweden (two production plants),
— Righini SA, France,— Huet SA, France,
— Theuma Deurenindustrie NV, Belgium.
A non-complainant producer of eucalyptus hardboard was also
visited, namely:
— Industria de Fibras de Madeira, Portugal,
as was the following unrelated importer of hardboard:
— Firma Christian Kröger GmbH & Co. KG, Germany.
B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE PRODUCT
1.Product under consideration
(4) The product under consideration in this anti-dumping proceeding
is hardboard. Hardboard is defined as fibreboard of wood or other
ligneous materials, whether or not bonded with resins or otherorganic substances and with a density exceeding 0.8 g/cm
3,
currently classifiable under CN codes ex 4411 11 00 andex 4411 19 00.1999R0194 — EN — 30.09.2001 — 001.001 — 2
(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 218, 6. 8. 1998, p. 16.
▼B
Hardboard is exclusively obtained from a ‘wet production
process’ (as opposed to dry-process fibreboards as describedbelow) and normally has a density of 800 to 1050 kg/m
3and is
made in thicknesses between 1,8 to 6,0 mm.
Hardboard is typically used in the manufacture of furniture, in the
construction and automotive industries, for door skins and for
packaging, especially fruit and vegetable packaging.
2.‘Thin’ dry-process fibreboards
(5) After the imposition of the provisionalanti-dumping measures, a
number of importers and users continued to argue for an
extension to the product scope of the proceeding. In particular,
they argued that the so-called thin forms (less than 6 mmthickness) of dry-process fibreboards such as medium- and high-density fibreboard (thin MDF and HDF) and hardboard haveessentially the same end uses, and therefore together form a singleproduct. It was therefore alleged that the scope of the analysis of
dumping, injury and Community interest should also include all
these products.
(6) On the basis of the information submitted up to the provisionalstage, a preliminary assessment of the extent to which the enduses of hardboard and thin dry-process fibreboards overlap wasmade. Based on the information submitted since the Provisional
Regulation a definitive assessment has been made and it has
become clear that, theoretically, such overlap is substantial andthat only for some market segments are the two products not at allinterchangeable.
(7) However, similarity of end uses does not alone determine thequestion of like product. The conclusions of the provisional
investigation that hardboard and thin dry-process fibreboards
were not a single product were based on differences of physicaland chemicalcharacteristics of the two products. Furtherinvestigation of the issues involved has allowed the followingrefinements of the analysis:
— it is confirmed that the thin HDF variant of dry-process
fibreboards can be produced in densities comparable to or
higher than the density of hardboard. With its density defined
as being above 800 kg/m
3, it is thin HDF which can be
considered the closest to hardboard,
— however, the average prices for thin HDF were higher than
those for thin MDF (10 to 15 % on average) and for most
hardboard of equivalent board thicknesses under 6 mm, so thatover the period investigated it was mainly thin MDF (densitylower than 800 kg/m
3) which competed on the market with
hardboard over a large part of its final uses, particularly in thefurniture sector, in part of the packaging sector, in the picture-
frames sector and in a part of the doors sector,
— it was also pointed out that new, zero-emission, thin dry-
process fibreboards are in production, i.e. thin dry-processfibreboards containing no formaldehyde. This development
allows thin dry-process fibreboards to compete in the market
of food packaging from which it has hitherto been excludedbecause of its formaldehyde content. However, these zero-emission products are a very recent innovation, and, althoughit is conceivable that thin dry-process fibreboards could in thefuture be used in the area of food packaging, their higher price
would probably preclude this at the present time. As these
developments relate to periods subsequent to the investigationperiod, they could not be investigated,
— the fact that thin dry-process fibreboards and hardboard share
a number of end uses does not imply that the market considers
them as a single product. Indeed, most operators in the sectorsinvolved have confirmed that, in practice, they do not use thedifferent board types indiscriminately because of the differentphysicalcharacteristics and technicalperformances of the twoproducts; rather, they choose between them according to1999R0194 — EN — 30.09.2001 — 001.001 — 3
▼B
which best suits their technicalrequirements. As an exampl e,
thin MDF has an advantage when it has to be laminated, dueto its more porous and matte surface. Moreover, its internal
structure is smooth and not layered like hardboard, and it does
not have the tendency to split when submitted to tension. As aconsequence, thin MDF is generally preferred to hardboard forthe manufacture of laminated doors and furniture elements.On the other hand, hardboard generally has a distinct
advantage in those uses where density and/or suppleness of
the panelare required, such as in l acquered and pre-painteddoors or automobile parts, or where it is thought that the resinscontained in thin dry-process fibreboards would have, asexplained above, a possible impact on health, such as in fruitand vegetable packaging.
(8) In conclusion, the definitive analysis confirms the provisionalfindings that hardboard and thin dry-process fibreboards, althoughthey are theoretically interchangeable for many end uses, are not,
in practice, a single product because of the differences in their
physicaland chemicalcharacteristics.
(9) Nevertheless, although thin dry-process fibreboards do not form asingle product with hardboard, it was claimed that the extent of
the overlap in their end-uses has important implications for the
analysis of the causes of any injury suffered by the Communityindustry. This issue is addressed below under causation.
3.Plywood and chipboard
(10) Submissions were received clarifying the arguments presented at
the provisionalstage of the investigation that pl ywood and
chipboard panels were also interchangeable with hardboard inmany of their applications. However, for the same reasons aswere outlined for thin dry-process fibreboards above, theoreticalsimilarity of end uses does not alone determine the question ofsingle product. Since the physical and chemical characteristics of
hardboard are different to chipboard and plywood panels, it
cannot be considered to be a single product with them.
The provisionalfindings are therefore confirmed.
4.Like product
(11) The further investigation confirmed that there were no differences
in the basic characteristics and uses of the hardboard imported
into the Community from the countries concerned and the
hardboard produced by the Community industry and sold on theCommunity market. The same is true with regard to hardboardproduced and sold on the domestic markets of Brazil, Bulgaria,Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland (the last mentioned served
also as an analogue country for imports from Russia). It was
therefore concluded that both the hardboard produced and sold bythe Community industry on the Community market and thehardboard produced and sold on the domestic markets of Brazil,Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland were, within themeaning of Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (herein-
after referred to as ‘the Basic Regulation’), alike to the hardboard
imported into the Community from the seven countries subject toinvestigation.
(12) However, the Brazilian exporting producers, as well as a number
of users of hardboard, in particular manufacturers of doorskins,
repeated their claims made at the provisional stage that Brazilianeucalyptus hardboard is not a like product with the productproduced by the Community industry and should be excludedfrom the scope of the investigation.
(13) Among the exporting producers concerned by this investigation,only the Brazilian exporting producers supply hardboard madefrom eucalyptus to the Community market. There are also twoproducers of eucalyptus hardboard in the Community, both1999R0194 — EN — 30.09.2001 — 001.001 — 4
▼B
situated in the Iberian peninsula, which did not participate in the
complaint which led to the initiation of this proceeding.
(14) These claims in respect of eucalyptus hardboard have been
extensively investigated. Following the imposition of provisional
measures, a number of door manufacturers across the Communitywere visited. In addition, one non-complainant Communityproducer of eucalyptus hardboard in Portugal was visited. Thesevisits were aimed at clarifying the issues concerning the inclusion
of Brazilian hardboard within the scope of this proceeding.
From these visits, the following became clear:
(a)The technical properties and uses of eucalyptus hardboard
(15) Numerous technicalsubmissions were received from the Brazil ian
exporting producers, Community door manufacturers, and thecomplainant concerning the properties of eucalyptus hardboard.The exporting producers and door manufacturers argue thateucalyptus hardboard has certain unique properties which set it
apart from any other hardboard types, whether made from
softwood or hardwood tree species other than eucalyptus. Theyclaim further that no viable alternative product is produced by theCommunity industry. The door manufacturers in particularemphasise that the Community industry produces no eucalyptushardboard for doorskins; indeed they point out that the only
Community-based producer of eucalyptus hardboard which does
make doorskin-quality boards, and is based in Portugal, is not oneof the complainants.
(16) It was found that hardboard made from eucalyptus wood has anumber of technical characteristics which make it particularlywell-suited for doorskins for high quality, finished doors. First, its
especially short fibres give the finished hardboard a very regular
appearance, high density and stronger tensile properties than non-eucalyptus hardboard. Second, the eucalyptus tree has hardly anybark, a factor which ensures that blemishes in the pressed boardare minimal.
(17) However, it should be borne in mind that the eucalyptus tree is
not the only species to have short fibres. The complainants have
submitted that there are 40 other species of tree growing inWestern Europe which have fibres of about the same length aseucalyptus, and in some cases even shorter.
(18) It should also be noted that the high quality required by the doormanufacturers is not limited to the type of wood of which the
hardboard is made. Some of the characteristics required, such as a
constant and reliable thickness of the board they use, a highdensity, a good resistance to high temperatures (doors areassembled at above 100 ºC) and humidity and the absence ofsurface defects are not necessarily linked to eucalyptus, but can
also be obtained with other woods, with a strictly controlled
production process. It can also be added that, as far as thesuitability for lacquering is concerned, it was found that somehardboards made with wood other than eucalyptus can belacquered with acceptable results, depending on the techniqueand the quantity of painting materialused. The advantage of
eucalyptus and in general of hardwood hardboard is mainly in the
smaller quantities of paint needed to achieve a smooth result.
(19) Furthermore, the analysis of the door manufacturers' activitiesalso confirmed that for unfinished doors, which are primed or pre-painted in white but which require finishing by the finalcustomer,doorskins made with different types of wood are used. It was also
found that some door producers used Community-produced
hardboard, not made with eucalyptus wood, to make lacquereddoors.
(20) It was also found that during the investigation period, eucalyptushardboard was also used for certain applications in the furniture,roofing and automobile industries and, as far as offcuts of1999R0194 — EN — 30.09.2001 — 001.001 — 5
▼B
hardboard sheets are concerned, for fruit and vegetable
containers.
(b)Conclusion on eucalyptus hardboard as a like product
(21) The examination of the interested parties' submissions confirms
that the exceptionalproperties of eucal yptus hardboard do nottechnically rule out its use in those areas in which other
hardboards are also used; indeed, the fact that it is not widely
used outside the doorskin sector is simply a reflection of therelatively higher price at which this product is sold on the market,in comparison with other hardwood and softwood hardboards.
Although, therefore, the eucalyptus hardboard produced and
exported by Brazilian exporting producers has certain specialcharacteristics, these are not sufficient to lead to the conclusionthat it is not a product alike to the hardboard produced by the
Community industry with which it shares the same basic physical
characteristics and uses within the meaning of Article 1(4) of theBasic Regulation.
C. DUMPING
1.Specific issues raised with regard to the establishment of
dumping for each of the countries concerned
(a) BRAZIL
(22) In view of the findings on causation in recitals 53 to 56, it is not
considered necessary to set out any findings in respect ofdumping of imports of the product concerned from Brazil.
(b) BULGARIA
(23) The Bulgarian exporting producers made no comments following
disclosure and the publication of the Provisional Regulation.
The dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the cif import
price at the Community border established for the Bulgarian
exporting producers remain unchanged, i.e.:
—Fazerles AD: 7,1 %
—Lessoplast AD: 7,2 %
—non-cooperating exporting producers: 7,2 %.
(c) ESTONIA
(24) The Estonian exporting producer made no comments following
disclosure and the publication of the Provisional Regulation.
The dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the cif import
price at the Community border established for the Estonianexporting producers remain unchanged, i.e.:
—AS Repo Vabrikud: 6,0 %
—non-cooperating exporting producers: 6,0 %.
(d) LATVIA
General
(i)Product classification
(25) Following the adoption of provisional measures, the Latvian
exporting producer requested a revision of the classification ofsome of the company product codes into product controlnumbers.1999R0194 — EN — 30.09.2001 — 001.001 — 6
▼B
The claim was based on the grounds that some company product
codes, which were originally incorrectly reported by the companyas referring to standard products, should be considered as cut-to-
size products.
This request has been granted, as the company product codes in
question did indeed not cover standard dimensions.
Normalval ue
(i)Profit margin in constructed normal values
The Latvian exporting producer claimed that when constructing
normal values, the profit earned on sales in the ordinary course oftrade should be expressed as a percentage of the total domestic
turnover of the like product of the company — including the
turnover of non-profitable sales — instead of the turnover of thesales in the ordinary course of trade only. The approach adoptedby the Commission in the Provisional Regulation inflates,according to the producer, the profit margin. The Latvian
producer furthermore asserted that there was a discrepancy
between the methods used by the Commission to calculate, on theone hand, the profit margins by excluding non-profitabletransactions as well as the dumping amounts by excludingnegative dumping and, on the other hand, the calculation of thedumping margins expressed as a percentage of the totalcif val ue.
This claim had to be rejected. The methods used by the
Commission to construct normalval ues and to determine which
sales had been made in the ordinary course of trade are described
in recitals 29 and 31 of the Provisional Regulation and are inconformity with the rules set out in Articles 2(4) and (6) of theBasic Regulation. In particular, it should be added that: first,Article 2(6) of the Basic Regulation clearly specifies that ‘the
amounts (…) for profits shall be based on actual data pertaining to
production and sales in the ordinary course of trade, of the likeproduct …’; second, the aim is to establish a profit margin thatcould normally be attained for sales of a given product on thedomestic market; third, Article 2(4) of the Basic Regulationprovides as to when loss-making sales of a given product may be
treated as being in the ordinary course of trade, i.e. if the quantity
sold with a loss is below 20 % of the total quantity sold of thatproduct. In that case, only the total turnover of a productincluding loss-making transactions is the basis of the profitmargin calculation.
Comparison between normalval ue and export price(i)Allowance for currency conversion
The Latvian exporting producer had claimed an allowance for
currency conversion based on a comparison of the amount in latsthe company would have obtained using the exchange rateapplicable at the time of the conclusion of the respective contractswith their customers and the amount actually obtained. This claim
is based on the assumption that the date of contract is the date of
sale. In the Provisional Regulation, the Commission had rejectedthis claim on the basis that the contracts submitted did not reflectthe materialterms of sal e and that the date of invoice moreappropriately established these terms.
The exporting producer reintroduced this claim, adding that
contracts could be amended. This confirms that the company
could react to exchange rate variations by amending export prices.
Therefore, it is confirmed that such contracts do not moreappropriately establish the material terms of sale as compared toinvoices, in particular with regard to the price. The claim couldnot, therefore, be accepted.
(ii)Interest rates used for credit purposes
(26) With regard to the credit cost allowance, the Latvian exporting
producer claims that the deposit rate instead of the credit rate1999R0194 — EN — 30.09.2001 — 001.001 — 7
▼B
should be used on the grounds that, the company having sufficient
liquidity, its credit costs are limited to the interest earnings notperceived on its bank deposit account.
Following the practice consistently applied by the Community
institutions, it was not found appropriate to base the calculation of
the credit cost allowance on the deposit rate on the grounds thatthese constitute opportunity costs as compared to actualcosts.
In this context it is noted that the interests customers would have
to pay in case of payment delays, as stated in the contractssubmitted to the Commission, suggest that the companydetermined such interests on the basis of credit rates rather than
deposit rates.
(iii)Depreciation of the machinery of the related domestic
producer
(27) The Latvian exporting producer claims that the depreciation of
the machinery of the related domestic producer should have beencalculated on the basis of a ten-year depreciation period instead of
a five-year depreciation period.
Pursuant to Article 2(5) of the Basic Regulation, this claim could
not be accepted as the amount used is in line with the amountdeclared in the audited financial statements of the year 1997 andthe application of the 20 % depreciation amount per year seemstherefore to reasonably reflect the depreciation costs associatedwith the production of the product under consideration.
Dumping
(28) On the basis of the above, the following modified dumping
margins expressed as a percentage of the cif import price at theCommunity border have been established for Latvian exportingproducers:
—AS ‘Bolderâja’: 4,7 %
—non-cooperating exporting producers: 4,7 %.
(e) LITHUANIA
(29) The Lithuanian exporting producer made no comments following
disclosure and the publication of the Provisional Regulation.
The dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the cif import
price at the Community border established for Lithuanianexporting producers remain unchanged, i.e.:
—JSC Grigiskes: 11,4 %
—non-cooperating exporting producers: 11,4 %.
(f) POLAND
Normalval ue
(i)Profit margin in constructed normal values
(30) The Polish exporting producers made the same claim as the
Latvian exporting producer with respect to the calculation of theprofit margin when constructing normalval ue (see recital25).
This request has been rejected for the reasons given in recital25.
(ii)Allocation of selling, general and administrative costs
(31) One Polish exporting producer claimed that the turnover-based
allocation method which the Commission has used to allocate1999R0194 — EN — 30.09.2001 — 001.001 — 8
▼B
selling, general and administrative expenses relating to domestic
sales should be revised and instead the method normally appliedby the company and used in its questionnaire response should be
utilised. This method was based on sales volumes in tonnes to
which conversion factors (i.e. the factors used to convert tonnesinto m
2) relating to the thickness of a given hardboard type were
applied.
The request was examined and it was concluded that the
allocation method used in the questionnaire response is in linewith the normalcost accounting practice of the company.
Consequently, the allocation method for selling, general and
administrative expenses has been changed in line with the requestof the company.
(iii)Exclusion of specific transactions
(32) One Polish exporting producer questioned the methodology
employed by the Commission to determine normal value byexcluding transactions of low quality hardboard. According to thiscompany, the exclusion of these transactions causes the artificial
overstatement of sales profitability and consequently affects their
dumping margin.
As stated in recital27 of the ProvisionalRegul ation, it was
established that only hardboard panels with the same character-istics and the same quality are directly comparable. This is sobecause the quality of the hardboard determines to a substantialdegree its price and the suitability for certain uses. Therefore, and
since this low quality hardboard was not exported to the
Community, the request made by the company could not beaccepted.
(iv)Cost of production
(33) One Polish exporting producer proposed a different way of
calculating the costs of cutting standard-size hardboard into cut-to-size boards as compared to this producer's questionnaireresponse. This new cost allocation also took into account the
thickness of the panels cut and not only the number of square
metres cut. This claim was justified on the grounds that thecutting machines can cut simultaneously up to 100 mm of panels.Therefore, it was claimed, in one cutting operation the companywas able to cut a substantially different number of square metresdepending on the thickness of the panels cut. Consequently, the
claim was accepted.
Comparison of normalval ue and export price
(i)Start-up costs
(34) One Polish exporting producer referred to in recital 65 of the
ProvisionalRegul ation disagreed with the Commission rejection
of the start-up cost adjustment to its worked hardboard operations.
However, as no new evidence was submitted by this producer, thefindings set out in recital65 of the ProvisionalRegul ation areconfirmed.
Dumping
(35) One Polish exporting producer has put into question the
methodology used by the Commission of calculating a single
dumping margin for all hardboard product types instead of
calculating a different dumping margin for raw hardboard and forworked hardboard.
This claim could not be accepted. It is the constant practice of the
Community institutions, in accordance with the provisions ofArticles 1 and 2 of the Basic Regulation, to establish a dumpingmargin for the product under consideration as a whole and not percategory, type or modelof the product concerned. The reason is1999R0194 — EN — 30.09.2001 — 001.001 — 9
▼B
that for a product like hardboard, which exists in a wide variety of
types, the implementation of anti-dumping measures, in particularanti-dumping duties, on a per type basis is from a customs point
of view impractical.
(36) On the basis of the above, the following modified dumping
margins expressed as a percentage of the cif import price at the
Community border duty unpaid have been established for Polish
exporting producers:
—Ekopłyta SA: 20,6 %
—Zakłady Płyt Pil śniowych SA w Krosnie
Odrzanskim:11,0 %
—Czarna Woda Zakłady Płyt Pil śniowych: 34,8 %
—Alpex Karlino SA: 22,4 %
—Zakłady Płyt Pil śniowych SA, Przemysl: 9,1 %
—Koniecpolskie Zakłady Płyt Pil śniowych SA: 11,4 %
—non-cooperating exporting producers: 34,8 %.
With regard to Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, it
was found that the overall level of cooperation was high. Asmentioned in recital35 of the ProvisionalRegul ation, it wastherefore considered appropriate to set the dumping margin forthe non-cooperating companies in the countries with high
cooperation at the level of the highest or the sole dumping
margin established for a cooperating company in the country inquestion.
(g) RUSSIA
(37) No Russian exporting producer made any comments following
disclosure and the publication of the Provisional Regulation.
Normal value for Russia was calculated on the basis of the
weighted average of the normal values established for cooperatingPolish companies.
The dumping margin for Russia has been recalculated taking into
account the changes in the normal values established for thePolish companies as described in recitals 30 to 33.
On this basis, a new single dumping margin expressed as a
percentage of the cif import price at the Community border, duty
unpaid, of 30,6 % has been established for the Russian exportingproducers.
D. INJURY
1.Consumption
(38) The provisionalfindings are confirmed.
2.Dumped imports
(a)Cumulation
(39) The Brazilian exporting producers reiterated the claim that
imports into the Community from Brazil should not be cumulatedwith imports from the other countries concerned in theproceeding. They argued that hardboard produced in Brazilandexported to the Community does not compete with importsoriginating in the other countries concerned in that:
— the level of its export prices is higher, on average, than the
level found for the other countries concerned, as shown by thelower provisional undercutting margin found at the provi-sionalstage,1999R0194 — EN — 30.09.2001 — 001.001 — 10
▼B
— the volume and market share of imports showed, during the
period under examination, a divergent trend from that of theother countries concerned,
— it is sold to different customers, mainly producers of lacquered
doors.
(40) An examination of these claims resulted in the following findings.
Almost all the imports from Brazil were destined for particular
end uses especially the manufacture of lacquered doors, a sectorwhere high prices are obtained and to which the other countriesconcerned do not sell. In fact, the users of Brazilian hardboard
considered imports from these other sources as being wholly
unsuitable for their needs, on both technical and economicgrounds.
The above findings on end use are supported by Brazilian price
levels, which are substantially above those of other imports from
the other countries concerned. Furthermore, Brazilian importvolumes are falling while others are rising.
(41) In the light of the above, it is not unreasonable in this case toconclude that a cumulative assessment of the imports from Brazilwith the effects of imports from other sources under investigation
would be inappropriate.
The effects of imports from Brazilwere therefore examined
separately.
(b)Volume and price development of the dumped imports
(42) The provisionalfindings are confirmed.
However, in the light of the decision to analyse the effects of
imports from Brazilseparatel y from the effects of imports fromthe other countries, the analysis of import volumes and pricetrends is as follows:
Imports from Brazil
1993 1994 1995 1996Investiga-
tion period
Quantity (t) 62 193 61 605 69 783 58 514 54 890
Indexed 100 99 112 94 88
Value (thousand ecus) 18 117 17 724 20 767 16 772 15 715
Indexed 100 98 115 93 87
Market share in % 6,3 5,4 6,0 5,2 4,6
Indexed 100 86 95 82 73
Price per tonne 291 288 298 287 286
Indexed 100 99 102 98 98
(43) Import volumes and market share show a significant decrease
between 1995 and the investigation period, while prices remained
relatively stable throughout the period examined.
Imports from other countries concerned
1993 1994 1995 1996Investiga-
tion period
Quantity (t) 171 890 192 165 253 041 209 727 222 103
Indexed 100 112 147 122 129
Value (thousand ecus) 28 707 33 919 49 103 43 461 49 1121999R0194 — EN — 30.09.2001 — 001.001 — 11
▼B
1993 1994 1995 1996Investiga-
tion period
Indexed 100 118 171 151 171
Market share in % 17,4 16,9 21,7 18,5 18,7
Indexed 100 97 125 107 108
Price per tonne 167 177 194 207 221
Indexed 100 106 116 124 132
Import volumes and market shares substantially increased
between 1993 and 1995, fell back in 1996, and increased again
in the investigation period. Imports, both in absolute value and in
terms of market share were higher in the investigation period thanat the beginning of the period examined.
Although prices rose significantly over the period considered for
the analysis of injury, imports from all these countries were stillsubstantially undercutting the Community industry's prices in theinvestigation period.
(c)Price comparison
(44) Following the disclosure of the provisional findings, comments
were made by the Brazilian exporting producers relating to themethodology used for the calculation of price undercutting.
It was pointed out that the price differentialbetween the Brazil ian
export prices and Community industry's prices was mainly due toa small part of the transactions during the investigation period,accounting for less than 1 % of the Community production.
One of the Brazilian exporting producers requested that for the
purpose of the comparison, where applicable, the price paid bythe first independent customer in the Community to its relatedimporter be used, as such a price was at the same level of trade as
prices of the Community industry. Furthermore, it was requested
that the margins found be expressed as a percentage of the totalvalue of imports in the investigation period, including thoseomitted from the comparison where no matching models had beensold by the Community producers.
(45) The latter request was not accepted. It is standard practice of theCommunity institutions to use only the cif value of the imports
during the investigation period for which an actualprice-
undercutting analysis has been performed and, consequently, forwhich matching Community-made product types existed whendetermining the margins found.
(46) Furthermore, the product controlnumbers provided by bothexporting producers and Community producers were carefully
examined and revised where necessary to ensure a fair
comparison. The comparison was then made at the same levelof trade between the ex works prices of the Community producersand either cif export prices, Community frontier duty paid, whenthe sale was made directly by the exporting producers to an
independent customer, or the ex warehouse resale prices of the
related importer to the first independent customer.
(47) The undercutting margin was calculated by weighting the type-by-type average undercutting rates by the quantities of thedumped imports times the average prices of the matchingCommunity-produced products.
The same criteria were applied to the price comparisons for the
other countries concerned.
(48) The export transactions used for the comparison represented atleast 74 % of total exports for each country concerned.1999R0194 — EN — 30.09.2001 — 001.001 — 12
▼B
(49) The revised calculations confirmed the existence of price
undercutting for all countries except Brazil, for which no price
undercutting was found. The new levels of price undercutting areshown in the table below:
Summary of the undercutting margins
CountryWeighted average undercutting on a direct
product type-to-type comparison
Brazil—
Bulgaria 44 %Estonia 65 %Latvia 48 %Lithuania 45 %
Poland 53 %
Russia 65 %
3.Situation of the Community industry
(50) The provisionalfindings are confirmed.
4.Conclusion on injury
(51) The Polish and Latvian exporting producers questioned the
provisionalconcl usions on injury on the grounds that thedevelopments of some injury factors, such as production, marketshare and sales turnover of the Community industry were not
sufficiently negative to show the existence of material injury.
These contentions were examined, but could not be accepted. The
overall analysis at the Community level of all indicators relating
to the situation of the Community industry, in particular in the
light of the substantial deterioration of its sales prices and of itsincreasing financiall osses, confirms the existence of injury.
(52) Therefore the provisionalfindings on injury are confirmed.
E. CAUSATION OF INJURY
1.Effect of the dumped imports from Brazil
(53) The Brazilian exporting producers claimed that imports origi-
nating in Brazil could not have caused injury for the followingreasons:
— the quantities imported from Brazildecreased by 20 %
between 1995 and the investigation period,
— the Brazilian product does not compete with Community
production since it is sold to specialised users, namelymanufacturers of lacquered doors, table mats and theautomotive industry which need Brazilian eucalyptus hard-board for their particular quality requirements, and cannot
replace it, in spite of its higher prices, with other hardboard
types,
— Brazilian exports do not undercut the Community industry's
sales, particularly in the abovementioned specialised sectors.
(54) As to the first claim, the decrease in the quantities imported does
not preclude that injury has been caused in the investigationperiod by those imports; indeed, the imports were still substantialand well above the de minimis limit as provided in Article 5(7) of
the Basic Regulation.1999R0194 — EN — 30.09.2001 — 001.001 — 13
▼B
(55) As to the other claims, it was found that:
— around 68 % of the imports from Brazilduring the
investigation period were destined for production, in theCommunity, of lacquered doors. The Community lacquereddoor industry has stringent quality requirements for which
Brazilian eucalyptus hardboard is particularly well-suited.
However, as pointed out at recital18, the high qual ity requiredby the door manufacturers is not strictly linked to the speciesof wood used, in this case eucalyptus. Brazilian hardboard iswell-suited to lacquered door manufacture, not only because it
is made with eucalyptus wood, but also because the Brazilian
producers carry out very severe quality controls on theirexports to the Community,
— in the investigation period only very small quantities of
hardboard produced by the Community industry were used forthe manufacture of lacquered doors; the demand was almostcompletely satisfied by eucalyptus hardboard either imported
from Brazil or supplied by the Portuguese non-complainant
producer. The door manufacturers explained their choice onthe grounds of the high quality guaranteed by those suppliers,
— the above argument on the specialend uses is supported by the
fact that there is no undercutting by Brazilian exports destinedfor the manufacture of door skins; in fact their prices are
significantly above those of the Community industry,
— the evidence, therefore, does not support the Community
producers' claim that market prices were depressed by
Brazilian exports, and that it is price depression whichprevents them from producing doorskins of a quality equal tothat of the Brazilian product and suitable for the production oflacquered doors,
— as to the imports from Brazil not sold to the lacquered doors
segment, they did not undercut, on average, the prices of
Community production.
(56) The foregoing leads to the conclusion that Brazilian exports were
not a cause of materialinjury to the Community industry, and
that, as a consequence, the proceeding with respect to Brazilshould be terminated without measures.
2.Effect of the dumped imports from the other countries
subject to investigation
(57) The volume of imports from the other countries subject toinvestigation increased by 29 % between 1993 and theinvestigation period. Although their prices increased, on average,by 32 % over the same period, they still undercut substantially the
prices of the Community industry in the investigation period. As a
result of this undercutting, which ranged from 44 % to 67 %, theCommunity industry experienced a 16 % fall in its selling pricesand a serious deterioration of its financialsituation.
The provisionalfindings that the dumped imports from Bul garia,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Russia caused material
injury to the Community industry are therefore confirmed.
3.Effect of imports from other third countries
(58) Although certain exporting producers in the countries concerned
reiterated claims that injury had been caused by the increase of
imports from other third countries, no new information was madeavailable in this respect which could alter the provisionalfindings.
The provisionalfindings are therefore confirmed.
4.Competition from non-complainant Community producers
(59) Some of the exporting producers concerned drew attention to the
fact that, although not undercutting the Community industry'sprices in the investigation period, non-complainant Community1999R0194 — EN — 30.09.2001 — 001.001 — 14
▼B
producers had been undercutting, on average, the Community
industry's prices from 1993 to 1995, and that this may have been,in those years, a cause of injury.
(60) It should be noted that, although lower than those of theCommunity industry, non-complainant producers' prices weresubstantially higher than the average prices of imports from thecountries concerned with the exception of Brazil: the averageprice of these imports was ECU 167 per tonne in 1993, while the
average unit price for non-complainant producers was ECU 1,02
per m
2, corresponding to more than ECU 300 per tonne.
(61) In the light of these price relationships, it is considered unlikelythat the pricing of non-complainant producers was a source ofinjury to the Community industry; in any event, such pricingeffect was considered insufficient to break the causall ink
between the dumped imports from the six countries and the
injury suffered.
5.Effect of dry-process fibreboards
(62) After the imposition of provisionalmeasures, various exporting
producers again argued that the injury suffered by the Community
industry was not caused by the dumped imports, but by thecompetition from the thin dry-process fibreboards.
(63) The investigation has shown that thin dry-process fibreboardcould be used in most areas where hardboard is employed.Nevertheless, despite the strong growth in the dry-process
fibreboard market in recent years, as shown by the growth in
consumption for hardboard, this has not occurred at the expenseof the hardboard sector.
(64) Various interested parties have submitted estimates of the size ofthe thin dry-process fibreboards sector. On the basis of statisticsprovided by the European MDF industry, the volume of
production of thin dry-process fibreboards is estimated at between
500 000 and 600 000 m
3in 1997, with an increase of around 50 %
between 1993 and 1997. Separate statistics on imports of thin dry-process fibreboards are not available, but imports of dry-processfibreboards of all thicknesses were reported to be minor until
1997.
(65) However, at the provisionalstage it was shown that, since
consumption of hardboard increased by 20 % between 1993 andthe investigation period (it should be recalled that consumptionwas around 1,2 million tonnes in the investigation period, despitethe rise of the thin dry-process fibreboards sector), it was unlikely
that the increase in the demand of thin dry-process fibreboards
was a major cause of injury. The injury to the Communityindustry did not consist of a loss in sales volumes, which mightindicate that a substitution had occurred. Injury was mainlyshown by financiall osses, due to a strong downward pressure onprices exerted by the dumped imports.
(66) Indeed, the data available show that the average price of thin dry-process fibreboards was above that of Community-producedhardboard of equivalent thickness for all of the period 1993 to1996. Only during the investigation period is there someindication that one type of thin dry-process fibreboard, namely
thin MDF, may have reached the price level of Community-
produced hardboard in parts of the Community. So even in thisscenario, hardboard imported from the countries concerned duringthe investigation period was sold at significantly lower prices asoutlined in recital 49.
(67) Given the interchangeability between all types of wood-based
products, thin dry-process fibreboards have established a presence
on all markets for wood-based panels, including the hardboardmarket. However, the generalincrease in the demand for woodpanels, and of fibreboards in particular, has allowed the demandfor hardboard to grow in spite of the presence of the competingproducts.1999R0194 — EN — 30.09.2001 — 001.001 — 15
▼B
(68) No new information has been made available which changes the
provisionalfinding that, despite the growth in demand for thin
dry-process fibreboards, the dumped imports of hardboard fromthe countries subject to investigation, with the exception ofBrazil, in isolation caused material injury to the Communityindustry, in terms of price depression and financiall osses.
6.Conclusion on causation
(69) In the light of the foregoing, the provisional findings on causation
are confirmed, with the exception of those relating to imports
from Brazil.
F. COMMUNITY INTEREST
1.The definitive investigation
(70) Following the imposition of provisional measures, the analysis of
the impact of anti-dumping measures on the various sectorsinvolved in the investigation continued. Users of hardboard werevisited, as indicated in recital 3, as well as a non-complainantCommunity producer of eucalyptus hardboard.
2.Impact on the Community industry
(71) Subsequent to the imposition of provisionalmeasures, several
arguments were presented on the likely impact of any definitivemeasures on the Community industry.
These arguments concerned the relationship between hardboard
and thin dry-process fibreboards, as follows.
(a)Arguments presented by interested parties
(72) It was claimed by certain interested parties that the Community
industry could not benefit from any anti-dumping measures as a
result of the substitutability between thin dry-process fibreboards
and hardboard.
In support of this view, it was alleged that the price level of thin
dry-process fibreboards has reached the level of hardboard ofequivalent thickness. According to these claims, the imposition ofanti-dumping measures, with the intention of increasing the priceof hardboard in the Community, would have the effect of raising
its price above that of competing thin dry-process fibreboards.
Where the two products are interchangeable, the effect of the anti-dumping measures would be that customers will choose to usethin dry-process fibreboards instead of hardboard. In other words,the anti-dumping measures would merely serve to reduce theconsumption of hardboard by encouraging a switch to the
consumption of thin dry-process fibreboards.
(73) It was also claimed that thin dry-process fibreboards are a product
in rising demand, with an increasing investment in productioncapacity and with the potentialto repl ace hardboard in most end
uses if a change in relative prices occurs.
(b)The size of the thin dry-process fibreboards sector
(74) As mentioned in recital64, production of thin dry-process
fibreboards was between 500 000 and 600 000 m3in 1997, with a
growth of around 50 % between 1993 and 1997. However, theplants specialised in the production of these thin boards (that is,those equipped with the so-called calander press) are currently
operating at near-full capacity, and most of the new investments
in the sector of dry-process fibreboards relate to plants which arebest employed in the production of ‘middle’ thicknesses, that is,between 6 and 30 mm, which are outside the scope of thisinvestigation.
In the short run, therefore, an increase in output of thin dry-
process fibreboards is unlikely.1999R0194 — EN — 30.09.2001 — 001.001 — 16
▼B
(c)The competition between hardboard and thin dry-process
fibreboards
(75) As explained in recitals 5 to 9, hardboard and dry-processfibreboards are theoretically interchangeable in many end uses,but their different physicalcharacteristics impl y that each has its
specific advantages and disadvantages for any particular end use.
(76) The exporting producers claimed that if there is a sufficient
change in the relative prices of the two competing products, the
extra costs incurred by any technicalprobl ems associated with
switching to the use of thin dry-process fibreboards can beovercome if the price advantage in comparison with hardboardbecomes large enough.
(77) The Community industry claimed, however, that the substitutionof hardboard with dry-process fibreboards has already taken placein those end uses where they have a technicaladvantage, and thatat present the competitive situation on the market has found an
equilibrium, which is not going to be substantially altered by the
proposed anti-dumping measures. Since consumption of hard-board continued to rise by 20 % over the period examined, thedata suggest that hardboard has been able to compete effectivelywith thin dry-process fibreboards, lending weight to the
arguments submitted by the Community industry. Continual
technicalprogress in the manufacture of thin dry-processfibreboards, however, makes it difficult to assess the degree towhich thin dry-process fibreboards might be used in fieldshitherto dominated by hardboard in the future.
(78) Thin dry-process fibreboards have been priced above hardboardof equivalent thickness for most of the period examined, but astechnological progress has brought about cost reductions, their
prices have declined steadily throughout the period, reaching
approximately the levels of Community-produced hardboard ofequivalent thickness by 1997.
It is unclear whether this trend decrease in the price of thin dry-
process fibreboards, as technological progress leads to continuedcost-reductions, is set to continue into the near future. The
complainant states that further substantial reductions in the prices
of thin dry-process fibreboards in the Community are not to beexpected. The product is, it is claimed, now beyond the phase ofrapid growth experienced in the last few years, which led todeclining unit costs, and the mills are approaching full capacity
utilisation, with a cost structure which is similar to that of
hardboard. Therefore, the price of thin dry-process fibreboards isexpected to remain, if definitive anti-dumping measures areimposed, on the same level as the price of Community-producedhardboard.
(79) On the other hand, the continuous-line and calander-pressproduction processes which are used to manufacture thin dry-process fibreboards are said, by the dry-processed fibreboard
industry, to be more efficient than the multi-daylight presses used
in the production of hardboard. In particular, the levels of wasteand offcuts from these MDF production processes are allegedlyfar lower than with multi-daylight presses, whilst the speed ofmanufacture is greater. Thus, it is claimed that the prices ofCommunity-produced thin dry-process fibreboards can continue
their declining trend. The same prediction is made by some of the
interested parties concerning the price trend of imports of thindry-process fibreboards from outside the Community.
These developments have implications for the use of hardboard in
those sectors where its end uses overlap with those of dry-process
fibreboards, such as in the furniture industry. If prices of dry-
process fibreboards continue to decline after the imposition ofdefinitive anti-dumping measures, it is possible that a switch inconsumption away from hardboard in favour of thin dry-processfibreboards could follow in those market segments where dry-process fibreboards are interchangeable with hardboard.1999R0194 — EN — 30.09.2001 — 001.001 — 17
▼B
(d)Conclusion on the impact of measures on the Community
industry
(80) In view of the above analysis, it was found that the measuresproposed will most likely have a beneficial impact on thesituation of the Community industry. In case anti-dumpingmeasures are not imposed, the dumped imports will continueundercutting substantially the Community industry's prices. Giventhe financial difficulties highlighted by the injury analysis, the
continuation of the business activity of the Community industry
would be seriously threatened and a large part of Communityproduction of hardboard, which guarantees at present thecoverage of a wide range of customers' demands, would be putat risk, forcing users to choose among less than optimal
alternatives, such as the dumped imports and other wood panel
products.
It should also be borne in mind that, although it is possible that
some of the benefits of anti-dumping measures may accrue toindustries other than the hardboard industry, it is highly unlikelythat the Community industry would have sought protectionagainst unfair trade had it not expected benefits from measures.
The effectiveness of the measures, however, may be reduced
depending on the future price relationship between hardboard andthe dry-process fibreboards, and a review under Article 11(3) of
the Basic Regulation may be justified should developments in this
context warrant such a review.
3.Impact on upstream industries
(81) As no further representations were received, the provisional
findings are confirmed.
4.Impact on importers
(82) In the absence of further representations, the provisionalfindings
are confirmed.
5.Impact on users
(83) All the users cooperating during the investigation were manu-
facturers of doors using only hardboard imported from Brazil. Itwas found that imports from Brazilhave not caused injury to theCommunity industry and that no measures should be adopted inrespect of that country.
The impact on other users is expected to be minor, given the rates
of duty proposed and the small share of hardboard in the cost of
production of most of such users.
6.Conclusion on Community interest
(84) In the light of the foregoing, it is concluded that there is no reason
to consider that the imposition of definitive anti-dumpingmeasures on imports of hardboard originating in the countriesfor whom definitive measures are to be adopted would be againstthe overall interest of the Community.
G. MEASURES PROPOSED
1.Termination of the proceeding in respect of Brazil
(85) Based on the conclusions of the definitive investigation, the
proceeding concerning imports originating in Brazilis terminatedby Commission Decision 1999/71/EC (
1) without the imposition
of measures. The amounts secured by way of a provisionalanti-dumping duty shall therefore be released. The undertakings1999R0194 — EN — 30.09.2001 — 001.001 — 18
(1) See page 71 of this OfficialJournal .
▼B
provisionally accepted from the two exporting producers in Brazil
will automatically lapse in accordance with Article 8(6) of theBasic Regulation.
2.Definitive measures
(a)Injury elimination level
(86) The injury elimination level was calculated using the same
methodology as described in the Provisional Regulation at recital113 with a level of trade adjustment to reflect sales made viatraders.
(87) An injury margin was established for each of the exportingproducers concerned as a result of these comparisons and thismargin was expressed as a percentage of the cif value of theirexports to the Community for product types for which there were
Community-made matches.
(b)Form and level of the definitive measures
(88) Based on the above conclusions on dumping, injury, causal link
and Community interest, it was considered what form and level ofanti-dumping measures would have to be taken in order to removethe trade-distorting effects of injurious dumping and to restoreeffective competitive conditions on the Community market.
Definitive measures should take the form of ad valorem duties,
which are deemed appropriate to remove the injury caused by thedumped imports.
In accordance with Article 9(4) of the Basic Regulation, as the
injury margin was lower than the dumping margin found for one
of the cooperating Polish exporting producers, the definitive anti-dumping duty for that company is set at the level of the former.For all other exporting producers, the injury margins are higherthan the corresponding dumping margins and measures aretherefore based on the latter margins. The same applies for the
residualduties.
(c)Undertakings
(89) It will be recalled from recital 115 et seq. of the Provisional
Regulation that undertakings had been offered by the cooperatingexporting producers in Brazil, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia,Lithuania and Poland, and provisionally accepted by theCommission.
These undertakings, with the exception of those offered by the
Brazilian companies, reflect the definitive findings of theinvestigation with respect to the minimum prices provided thereinand have been definitively accepted by Commission Decision1999/71/EC.
3.Collection of the provisional duties
(90) In the light of the seriousness of the injury suffered by the
Community industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts
secured by way of the provisionalanti-dumping duty under the
Provisional Regulation should be definitively collected to theextent of the amount of the definitive duties levied,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of
hardboard, defined as wet-processed fibreboard of wood or otherligneous materials, whether or not bonded with resins or other organicsubstances and with a density exceeding 0,8 g/cm
3, falling under CN
codes ex 4411 11 00 and ex 4411 19 00 (TARIC codes: 4411 11 00*101999R0194 — EN — 30.09.2001 — 001.001 — 19
▼B
and 4411 19 00*10) originating in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland and Russia.
2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net
free-at-Community frontier price to the products manufactured by the
companies listed below shall be as follows:
Country CompanyRate of
duty
(%)TARIC
additional
code
Bulgaria Fazerles AD 7,1 8461
All other companies 7,2 8900
Estonia All companies 6,0 —
Latvia All companies 4,7 —
Lithuania All companies 11,4 —
Poland Alpex-Karlino SA 22,4 8479
Ekopłyta SA 7,0 8480
Zakłady Płyt Pil śniowych SA, Prze-
mysl9,1 8481
Koniecpolskie Zakłady Płyt
Pilśniowych SA, Przemysl11,4 8494
Zakłady Płyt Pil śniowych SA w
Krosnie Odrzanskim11,0 8495
All other companies 34,8 8900
Russia All companies 30,6 —
Article 2
1. Notwithstanding Article 1, the definitive duty shall not apply to
imports of hardboard produced and directly exported and invoiced to animporting company in the Community by the companies listed inparagraph 3, provided that the conditions of paragraph 2 are met.
2. When the declaration for release for free circulation is presented,
exemption from the duty shall be conditional upon presentation to the
competent Member State's customs services of a valid undertaking
invoice issued by one of the companies listed in paragraph 3. Theundertaking invoice, the essential elements of which are listed in theAnnex, shall conform to the requirements for such invoices set out in theundertaking accepted by Commission Decision 1999/71/EC.
3. Imports accompanied by an undertaking invoice shall be declared
under the following TARIC additional codes:
Country Company TARIC AdditionalCode
Bulgaria Fazerles AD 8496
Bulgaria Lessoplast AD 8497
Estonia AS Repo Vabrikud 8498
Lithuania JSC Grigiskes 8510
Poland Alpex-Karlino SA 8511
Poland Czarna Woda Zaklady Plyt
Pilśniowych8600
Poland Ekoplyta SA 8513
Poland Zaklady Plyt Pil śniowych SA, Prze-
mysl8545
Poland Koniecpolskie Zaklady Plyt
Pilśniowych SA8546
Poland Zaklady Plyt Pil śniowych SA w
Krosnie Odrzanskim85471999R0194 — EN — 30.09.2001 — 001.001 — 20
▼M1
▼B
Article 3
1. The amount provisionally secured by the Provisional Regulation
with respect to imports originating in the countries mentioned in Article
1 shall be definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the
definitive duties levied.
2. The amounts provisionally secured by the Provisional Regulation
with respect to imports originating in Brazil shall be released.
Article 4
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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.1999R0194 — EN — 30.09.2001 — 001.001 — 21
▼B
ANNEX
Elements to be indicated in the undertaking invoice referred to in Article
2(2)
1. The product reporting code (as established in the undertaking offered by the
producing exporter in question).
2. The exact description of the goods, including:
— the company product code (CPC); whether the hardboard is unworked or
worked; the thickness and the precise measures of the panel, indicating in
brackets whether it has standard measures (STA) or cut-to-size ones
(CTS),
— CN code,— the TARIC additionalcode under which the goods on the invoice may be
customs cleared at Community borders (as specified in the Regulation),
— quantity (to be given in m
2).
3. The description of the terms of the sale, including:
— price per square metre (1),
— the applicable payment terms,— the applicable delivery terms,— totaldiscounts and rebates.
4. Name of the importer to which the invoice is issued directly by the Company.
5. The name of the officialof the Company that has issued the undertaking
invoice and the following signed declaration: ‘I, the undersigned, certify that
the sale for direct export to the European Community of the goods covered by
this invoice is being made within the scope and under the terms of the
undertaking offered by the Company, and accepted by the European
Commission through Decision 1999/71/EC (
2). I declare that the information
provided in this invoice is complete and correct.’1999R0194 — EN — 30.09.2001 — 001.001 — 22
(1) For undertaking invoices issued by the Latvian exporting producer AS ‘Bolderâja’, in the
case of sales via sales agents established in the Community, the price per m2may appear
on an additionalinvoice issued by the agent instead of on the undertaking invoice issuedby AS ‘Bolderâja’. In that event, the undertaking invoice should also mention the nameof the agent.
(
2) See page 71 of this OfficialJournal .