(27)

The sole cooperating producer submitted comments on the AAS. The company claimed that despite the situation described under recital 24 it was possible to establish whether SION norm requirements stipulated under specific authorisations exceed the materials needed to produce the reference quantity of the resulting export product and that the company maintained actual consumption records in highly meticulous manner. In this respect it is noted that the actual production records confirmed that it was not possible to establish a reliable benchmark per given authorisation (i.e. materials needed to produce the reference quantity) account taken of the various applicable SION norms and the incoherent mixture of raw materials used for production. Furthermore, raw materials covered by the scheme were found to be used for products other than the product concerned. Thus, making virtually impossible any attempt to calculate yield results for the product under investigation. Moreover, the company did not keep, in breach of the relevant GOI provisions, the per EXIM policy requested consumption record (i.e. Appendix 18) which purpose is to provide a comprehensible way of monitoring and verifying actual consumption. The company also claimed that Article 26(1) of the basic Regulation does not empower the Commission to examine the records of the independent chartered accountant. According to the company, the certificate has to be accepted unless there are grounds to believe that the chartered accountant has made a false certification. In this respect it is recalled that the verification process performed by the chartered accountant and the issuing of the relevant certificate form part of the verification system introduced by the GOI in its EXIM policy, as described under recital 22. The Commission was therefore obliged to examine whether the aforesaid verification system was effectively applied. Furthermore, in line with the provisions of Article 11(8) of the basic Regulation, the Commission had to examine the information supplied during the course of the investigation upon which findings are based. The fact that neither the company nor the assigned chartered account hold any record on the checks performed in order to issue the EXIM policy stipulated certificate demonstrates that the company was not in a position to prove that the relevant EXIM policy provisions were met. The company disputed the fact that GOI has not yet verified the compliance of its registers with EXIM policy requirements but did not provide any concrete evidence on its claim. It was also argued that the actual consumption of the sole cooperating producer had been higher than the SION norms for every input and that there was no excess remission of duties. Nevertheless, account taken of the actual situation found on the spot (i.e. mixture of inputs and produced products, use of different SION norms, lack of the by EXIM policy stipulated actual consumption registers) and pending the fulfilment of the necessary final verification steps by the GOI, any calculation with respect to actual consumption and consequent excess remission of duties per authorisation/license and SION norm was not feasible. Therefore, all the aforesaid claims had to be rejected. Finally, the company provided comments on a computation error which was considered warrant and was acknowledged in the calculation of the subsidy amount.