COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 03.09.1997 
COM(97)440 final 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) 
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of unwrought, unalloyed 
zinc originating in Poland and Russia and definitively collecting the 
provisional duty imposed 
(presented by the Commission) 

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
1. Attached is a proposal for a Council Regulation imposing definitive anti­
dumping duties on imports of unwrought, unalloyed zinc originating in Poland 
and Russia. The proposed regulation also makes provision for the definitive 
collection of the, provisional anti-dumping duty imposed by Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 593/97 of 25 March 1997 (*). 
2. This proposal should be assessed together with a Commission Decision 
accepting the undertakings offered by two Polish exporters which co-operated in 
the investigation. 
3. The proposed act basically confirms the provisional findings of the Commission 
as regards issues such as the like product, dumping, injury, causation and 
Community interest. Some of these findings, however, have been slightly 
adjusted, in particular the price undercutting calculation and the dumping 
calculation. As a result, the definitive duties will be somewhat lower than the 
provisional ones. 
4. Commission Regulation (EC) No 593/97 imposed a provisional duty for a 
period of six months and entered into force on 5 April 1997. Definitive 
measures should therefore be adopted and published before the provisional 
duties would lapse, i.e. not later than 4 October 1997. 
OJ No L 89, 4. 4. 1997, p. 6 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No /97 
of 1997 
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of unwrought, unalloyed 
zinc originating in Poland and Russia and definitively collecting the 
provisional duty imposed 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on 
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European 
Community (*), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2331/96 (2), and in particular 
Articles 8, 9 and 23 thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the 
Advisory Committee, 
Whereas: 
A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES 
1. By means of Commission Regulation (EC) No 593/97 ( ), hereinafter referred to as 
'the provisional duty Regulation', a provisional anti-dumping duty was imposed on 
imports of unwrought, unalloyed zinc falling within CN codes 7901 11 00, 7901 12 
10 and 7901 12 30, originating in Poland and Russia. 
OJNoL56, 6. 3. 1996, p. 1. 
OJNoL317, 6. 12. 1996, p. 1. 
OJNoL89, 04.04.1997, p. 6 
B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE 
2. All interested parties co-operating in the investigation, the complainant and the 
Polish and Russian authorities, received disclosure in writing concerning the 
essential facts and considerations on the basis of which provisional measures were 
imposed. , 
3. Within the time limits set in the provisional duty Regulation, the Polish 
government, the two co-operating Polish producers/exporters listed in the 
provisional duty Regulation, hereinafter referred to as "the exporters",* as well as 
two importers, have submitted comments in writing. 
4. All parties which so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard by the 
Commission services. 
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE PRODUCT 
5. The Polish government, the co-operating Polish exporters and an importer of zinc 
originating in Russia raised the question whether their product and the products of 
the European producers could be considered one like product, given certain 
differences in physical characteristics and the fact that they fall within three 
different CN codes. 
6. ÎAS laid down in recitals (9) to (15) of the provisional duty Regulation all grades of 
unwrought, unalloyed zinc closely resemble each other. The grades are alike as far 
as their technical and physical characteristics (minimum content of zinc for all 
grades: 98.5 %) and their main uses (e.g. brass industry) are concerned. In addition, 
prices for all grades are based on the LME quotations for Special High Grade 
(SHG) zinc which indicates that they are considered as one like product by the 
market. 
7. The existence of limited differences in the zinc content (Special High Grade 
(SHG), High Grade (HG), Good Ordinary Brand (GOB)) and in the impurities (in 
particular cadmium), between zinc produced by Community producers and Polish 
zinc, which was invoked by the exporters, does not invalidate this finding, as both 
HG and GOB zinc - which are manufactured by the exporters - and SHG zinc 
manufactured by the Community industry, compete directly in the market segment 
where they are used (hot-dip galvanising, production of brass, production of alloys 
other than casting alloys). It should also be noted that a sizeable proportion of the 
zinc produced by the Community industry is GOB zinc and therefore competes 
directly with Polish GOB and HG zinc as well as with SHG zinc produced by the 
Community industry. 
8. The provisional findings laid down in recitals (9) to (15) of the provisional duty 
regulation are therefore confirmed. 
D. DUMPING 
a) Poland 
9. Whereas the methodology used to calculate the dumping margins was not 
challenged in general, the Polish co-operating companies raised some specific 
questions concerning cost of production, the ordinary course of trade test and 
adjustments. 
m 
(i) Normal Value 
a) Cost of production 
lO.One Polish company requested some changes in the calculation of its production 
costs for the purpose of establishing normal value. The company claimed, in 
particular, that the costs and/or revenues relating to certain by-products were not 
excluded from the calculation of the production cost for zinc while this should 
allegedly have been done. This claim for correction could not be granted since the 
calculation of the production costs was based on the data provided by the company 
in the questionnaire response and duly verified during the on-spot verification. In 
addition and more generally, it should be noted that for the purpose of an anti­
dumping proceeding the cost of production as recorded in the company's ledgers 
will, normally, be the basis for the determinations in accordance with Article 2 (5) 
of the Basic Regulation. Any proposals for a cost allocation methodology different 
from the one normally applied by the company concerned, has to be claimed within 
the time limits specified in the Notice of Initiation, in order to allow for a proper 
verification on the spot. This was, however, not done by the company concerned. 
11 .The company furthermore claimed that the monthly cost of production figures 
were not representative since certain non-recurrent cost items were not spread out 
over the entire investigation period. In this respect, it should be noted that the 
Commission has based its calculation on data provided by the company. As the 
initial submissions of the company regarding its production costs did not reflect an 
appropriate allocation of (non-recurrent) costs, the company provided, at the 
request of the Commission, a revised version which was verified and used for the 
determinations. Consequently, there is no need to revise the calculations again. 
12.Finally, this company alleged that in a high inflation environment it would be more 
appropriate to calculate an average cost of production per tonne for the whole 
investigation period and to adjust the average cost level by monthly inflation rates 
to arrive at monthly costs of production. This claim could not be granted as it was 
found to be possible within the accountancy system of the company to establish 
reasonably the actual cost of production incurred on a monthly basis. These 
monthly costs, which were based on the questionnaire response and the 
information verified during the on-spot verification, were consequently used in the 
determinations. 
b) Sales in the ordinary course of trade 
13.One company raised some questions as regards the determination whether 
domestic sales were made in the ordinary course of trade. The company disputed, 
in particular, the exclusion of certain non-profitable transactions from the 
calculation of the normal values. 
14.1n this respect, it should be recalled that the Commission established for the 
provisional duty Regulation whether domestic sales transactions of the company 
are in the ordinary course of trade, in accordance with Article 2 (4) of the Basic 
Regulation. Since the inflation rate of Poland was significant during the 
investigation period, calculations were carried out on a monthly basis in order to 
allow for a comparison of sales transactions and production costs at - as nearly as 
possible - the same time (see recitals 17 to 19 of the provisional duty Regulation). 
15.Whereas this approach was not contested in general, the company claimed that in a 
high inflation environment the monthly average production costs should not be 
compared with individual sales transactions, but with monthly average domestic 
selling prices. The company alleged that the approach applied by the Commission 
would almost automatically lead to a larger number of sales at the beginning of a 
period being at a loss which would lead to their unwarranted exclusion. This 
argument is contradicted by the findings of the investigation. An analysis carried 
out by the Commission showed that contrary to the allegation of the company no 
clear pattern of profitable sales transactions at the end of a month, or transactions at 
a loss at the beginning of the month, could be established. 
16.Furthermore, it was claimed that certain sales at a loss should not be excluded 
since the period for recovery of losses is at least six months, in accordance with 
Article 2 (4) of the Basic Regulation. With regard to one exporter it was found, 
however, that during the whole investigation period (one year) more than 20 % of 
its sales were at a loss when comparing the monthly production costs with monthly 
sales transactions. Consequently, the exclusion of the sales at a loss is justified 
since the transactions were not in the ordinary course of trade. These sales at a loss 
were made in substantial quantities and a sufficient recovery from the losses as 
required by Article 2 (4) of the Basic Regulation could not take place. 
17.For the other co-operating company, it was established that - on a yearly basis -
less than 20 % of their sales during the investigation period was at a loss. It was, 
therefore, decided to include the sales at a loss in the calculation of the normal 
value which slightly reduced the normal value of this company. 
(ii) Export price 
18.One of the Polish companies claimed that the total amount of its export turnover to 
the Community is higher than that applied by the Commission for its determination 
of the export prices. This argument was rejected as the calculation made by the 
company concerned was not based on the exchange rates attached to the 
questionnaire sent by the Commission. 
(Hi) Comparison between normal value and export price 
19.One company requested that their normal value should be established on the basis 
of domestic sales to customers buying more than 2000 tons per year since 
customers on the export market (EC) would also buy more than 2000 tons. This 
claim could not be accepted since it was not claimed in the questionnaire response 
and no additional verification visits could be carried out after the imposition of the 
provisional duty. Therefore, it could not be established whether the company really 
applied a consistent quantity-related discount policy on the domestic market. 
20.Both Polish exporters repeated their requests made prior to the imposition of 
provisional duties for an adjustment for differences in the level of trade. In this 
regard it was, however, noted that no new arguments were presented to substantiate 
this claim. Therefore the findings, as laid down in recital 24 of the provisional duty 
regulation, are confirmed. 
(iv) Dumping margins 
21.Taking into consideration the changes in the normal value for one company as 
indicated above, the other findings for Poland as laid down in recitals 17 to 28 of 
the provisional duty regulation are «confirmed and the recalculated dumping 
margins, expressed as a percentage of the free-at-Community-frontier prices, are as 
follows: 
Huta Cynku 'Miasteczko Slaskie', Miasteczko Slaskie 14.4% 
Kombinat Gorniczco-Hutniczy Boleslaw, Bukowno 5.2% 
The dumping margin applicable to non-cooperating producers/exporters remains 
unchanged at the level of 14.4 %. 
b) Russia 
(i) Normal Value 
22.Since Russia is considered to be a non-market economy country for the purpose of 
anti-dumping proceedings (cf. Article 2 (7) of the Basic Regulation which refers to 
Regulation (EC) No 519/94 ( )), its normal value was established by reference to 
the normal value found in an analogue country (in this proceeding Poland, see 
recital 29 of the provisional duty Regulation). As the normal value for this country 
was revised, the normal value used for the calculations relating to Russia was 
revised accordingly. 
OJ No L 67, 10. 3. 1994, p. 89 
mÊÊÊÊmÊÊÊÊÊmÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊmiÊÊÊÊmm P. 9 
(ii) Export price 
23 .One importer of Russian zinc alleged that Eurostat statistics for Russia might be 
incorrect due to wrong origin declarations and requested that its export transactions 
should form the basis of the export prices. This claim could not be granted since 
the allegations were not sufficiently substantiated and could -at this stage of the 
proceeding - not bé verified. The allegations would anyhow only invalidate a 
portion of Eurostat data. 
(Hi) Comparison between normal value and export price 
24.This company further claimed that Polish and Russian zinc are not of the same 
quality and, therefore, an adjustment for physical differences should be made. In 
this respect, it was noted, however, that the normal value was established on the 
basis of the company producing the same quality as the majority of the Russian 
zinc producers. Consequently, an additional adjustment was not warranted. 
(iv) Dumping margins 
25.Taking into account the revised normal value established for the reference country 
and considering that the other findings for Russia as laid down in recitals 29 to 34 
of the provisional duty Regulation are confirmed, the recalculated dumping 
margin, expressed as a percentage of the free-at-Community-frontier prices, 
amounts to: 
Russia 6.9 %. 
p. 10 
E. INJURY 
a) General Injury Factors 
26.The comments made by the exporters in respect of the provisional findings 
regarding injury factors were limited to price undercutting. The Polish Government 
alleged, however, that there was little or no injury, arguing from the fact that 
Community producers were using almost full capacity. However, this argument 
does not invalidate the statement made in recital 51 of the provisional duty 
Regulation, i.e. that the investigation showed that, because of the special nature of 
the production process and the high fixed costs linked to the production of 
unalloyed, unwrought zinc, capacity must be as fully used as possible, even when 
this means that sales of the final products would afterwards be made at a loss. As 
stated in that recital, there are also high variable costs incurred (e.g. high energy 
consumption for start-up) if production is interrupted. It cannot therefore be 
accepted that the fact that, in the present case, the Community producers' capacity 
would have been almost fully used during the investigation period should lead to 
the conclusion that they were not suffering material injury. 
27.0ne of the importers referred to at recital 3 above submitted that an increase of 
stocks of GOB could not have been caused by imports of HG zinc originating in 
Russia and objected to the cumulative assessment made for Poland and Russia 
arguing that Russia only produced HG zinc. These arguments disregard, however, 
that GOB and HG zinc compete with each other in the market segment of hot-dip 
galvanizing and brass manufacturing where they are used. Moreover, the 
conditions of competition between zinc originating in Poland and zinc originating 
in Russia are similar as neither HG zinc nor GOB zinc are traded at the LME and 
both grades, as well as slightly more expensive SHG zinc, can be used in this 
market segment. 
»p. 11 
28.The provisional findings pertaining to, in particular, consumption on the 
Community market, production, sales and profitability of the Community industry 
and employment in the Community industry, as laid down in recitals 37, 38, 40 
through 45, and 50 through 60 of the provisional duty Regulation, are therefore 
confirmed. 
b) Price undercutting 
29.Further to the comments made by the exporters and one of the importers referred to 
at recital 3 above, the provisional findings concerning the Community producers' 
prices have been reconsidered. As regards the premium of 3 % on the "LME price 
(recital 47 of the provisional duty Regulation), it was noted that the publications of 
the International Lead and Zinc Study Group confirm that during the investigation 
period zinc was being sold at a premium. The premium of 3 % or US$ 30 on an 
average LME price of US$ 1000/ton, paid during the investigation period, does not 
appear either excessive or unreasonable, taking into consideration, for instance, 
that loading costs at the LME warehouse (which are paid by the buyer but need not 
to be paid in case of direct sales outside the LME) amounted already to US$15/ton. 
30.This premium of 3 % reflects the facts that the pripe charged by EC producers in 
case of direct sales to industrial users is not identical to the LME price, but 
somewhat higher to cover selling costs and the costs of both currency and zinc 
hedging, and that buyers accept to pay a slightly higher price e.g. if they are certain 
to obtain the specific brand of a given producer or if transport costs are lower than 
those from an LME-approved warehouse. The* premium includes all costs 
associated with the marketing and technical service offered to the customer, which 
are incurred by the producer. For the buyer, direct sales have the advantage that the 
cost of the warrant, the cost of moving the metal from an LME warehouse to the 
truck and the broker's fee, which would have to be paid in case of sales through the 
LME, need not be paid. 
Ip. 12 
3 l.In this respect, it is worth noting that the cost of hedging included in this premium 
could not have been inflated, as this cost included administrative costs, the 
payment of broker's fees and finance charges only, while profits or losses arising 
out of hedging were separated out of the calculations in order to allow for a fair 
comparison. 
32.The exporters and one of the importers.referred to at recital 3 above objected to the 
Commission's assumption that the prices of the three grades of zinc were identical, 
claiming that the prices of HG and GOB zinc were lower than the price of SHG 
zinc which had been used for the calculation (as the LME price is a price for SHG 
zinc). According to the exporters, account should be taken of the difference in price 
between the three grades of zinc. As the prices published by the International Lead 
and Zinc Study Group show that, during the investigation period there was indeed 
a very small differential between the prices of SHG, HG and GOB zinc it is 
appropriate to take account of this difference in price. While HG zinc was found to 
have been sold at a rebate of maximum 0.3 % on the price of SHG zinc, the 
differential between GOB and SHG was just below 1 % of the price of SHG zinc. 
33.One of the exporters claimed that allowance should be made for the fact that its 
GOB zinc has a much higher cadmium content than Community produced GOB 
zinc and proposed that the market value of this difference, assessed on the basis of 
the cost of refining, should be added to its export prices in order to carry out the 
undercutting calculation on a fair basis. 
34.While the exporter concerned showed that Community producers' zinc did meet 
the CEN 1179 standard and its (unrectified) GOB zinc did not, the documents 
submitted by this exporter did not enable the Commission services to make a 
precise assessment of the prices of non-Polish GOB zinc with the same cadmium 
content as the zinc exported by this exporter and sold in the Community market 
during the investigation period. The Community industry provided information on 
the costs of rectification (i.e. upgrading, by means of distillation, of GOB zinc not 
meeting the CEN 1179 standard into both SHG and GOB zinc with a standard 
cadmium content) that could be allocated to the elimination of excessive cadmium, 
tp. 13 
if this rectification took place immediately after the refining of zinc concentrates. 
However, the specific costs which should be allocated to the elimination of 
excessive cadmium in case of a rectification undertaken in another plant after 
completion of the process of refining zinc concentrates into unrectified GOB zinc 
(likely to be disproportionately high) could not be established precisely, as the 
exporter and the Community industry supplied contradictory information also 
relating to the question as to what extent it is, in this situation, economically 
realistic to carry out such a rectification with a view to removing excessive 
cadmium from unrectified GOB zinc. 
35.Nevertheless, since the high cadmium content (and the health hazards resulting 
therefrom) prevents certain users from using the zinc without rectification, 
although the investigation showed this is not the case for all users, the price 
differential between high cadmium GOB zinc and GOB zinc meeting the CEN 
1179 standard had to be assessed. To tm\end, on the one-hand, it should be noted 
that it is not possible to conclude that the average market value* of zinc having a 
lower, "standard" cadmium content would coincide with the price of the exporter's 
zinc increased by the refining costs (as it is unlikely that these refining costs could 
always be entirely reflected in the price and thus fully passed on to any customer). 
On the other hand, the information submitted by the exporter (which showed that 
there was a differential between the price of its GOB zinc and the LME price 
exceeding the differential of 1 % between the prices of GOB and SHG zinc 
published by the International Lead and Zinc Study Group) and the Community 
industry demonstrates that a reasonable average price differential between GOB 
zinc with a high cadmium content and GOB zinc with a cadmium content not 
exceeding the limit of the CEN standard could be established, which is the basis for 
an adjustment of the export price of the Polish exporter concerned. 
36.1n addition, the exporters claimed that a difference in level of trade should be taken 
into account as Polish export sales would have been made to traders only. As stated 
in recital 46 of the provisional duty Regulation, the undercutting calculation was 
made using the price in the Community market of zinc manufactured by 
>p. 14 
Community producers, established taking into account that considerable direct 
sales exist from zinc refiners to both industrial users and traders, which are not 
taking place through the LME. This means that both sales to industrial users and 
sales to traders were taken into account and that the calculated price charged by 
Community producers in the Community market, which was found to be somewhat 
higher than the LME price, constitutes an average price for both categories. It is 
therefore considered appropriate that the price undercutting calculation should be 
corrected on this point by adding a reasonable margin for the trader to the export 
prices used. 
37.The exporters also claimed that an adjustment should be made for transport costs 
within the Community and one of them submitted that the export prices of the 
exporters should have been compared to the LME price of the month prior to the 
month in which the transaction took place. For the purpose of the price 
undercutting calculation, a comparison was made between the ex-works prices of 
Community producers and tlje export price of Polish zinc (cleared through 
customs, at the Community frontier) during each of the months of the investigation 
period. Therefore, it does not appear appropriate to make any further adjustment. 
c) Conclusion on Injury 
38.Taking into account the small difference in price between the three grades of zinc, 
the difference in the level of trade, and, for one of the exporters, the higher 
cadmium content of GOB zinc originating in Poland, the price undercutting 
margins were recalculated as follows: 
Huta Cynku 'Miasteczko Slaskie', Miasteczko Slaskie 14.0 %. 
Kombinat Gorniczco-Hutniczy Boleslaw, Bukowno 6.6 % 
Other Polish producers/exporters 14.0 % 
Russia 5.2 % 
p. 15 
39. Apart from these modifications, the provisional findings laid down in recitals 37 to 
60 of the provisional duty Regulation are confirmed. 
F. CAUSATION 
40. One of the importers referred to at recital 3 above made some comments on the 
Commission's findings essentially based on the assumption that HG and GOB zinc 
would not be competing with each other. As this assumption is incorrect, no 
sufficiently substantiated comments were made on the provisional findings 
concerning the causal link between dumping of zinc originating in Poland and 
Russia and injury to the Community producers, recitals 61 to 70 of the provisional 
duty Regulation are herewith confirmed. 
G. COMMUNITY INTEREST 
41.No representations concerning Community interest were submitted by industrial 
users or their representative associations. The exporters pointed out, however, that 
stocks in LME warehouses had decreased since the end of the investigation period 
and that prices might go up shortly, as supply would fall short of demand. 
42.In this regard it should be noted that a direct linkage exists between the price of 
zinc concentrates (i.e. the raw material used by zinc refiners) and the price of 
refined zinc. Therefore, any price increase of refined zinc at LME level 
automatically corresponds to an increase in the cost of raw material for Community 
producers. Accordingly, no remedial effect can be expected from an increase of 
the price of refined zinc at that level and no such price evolution can be such as to 
render measures unwarranted in the present case. 
43.One of the importers referred to at recital 3 above argued that the interests of final 
consumers had not been properly assessed. In this regard, it should be noted that 
the Commission has found that the effect of measures on user industries should be 
minimal. It may therefore be assumed that no major price increases for final 
consumers will occur. 
p. 16 
44.The same importer, which claimed that Russian smelters would produce zinc for it 
in accordance with a tolling agreement, also alleged that measures would be 
against the Community interest because some major Community producers had 
bought zinc originating in Russia. This allegation was however not sufficiently 
substantiated. In addition, it should be recalled in this respect, that Article 4 (1) (a) 
does not provide for the automatic exclusion of producers which themselves import 
the dumped product. 
45.The provisional findings regarding the Community interest assessment (recitals 71 
to 75 of the provisional duty regulation) are confirmed. 
H. DEFINITIVE MEASURES 
a) Undertakings 
46.Subsequent to the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties and the 
submission of their comments on the Commission's provisional findings, the two 
co-operating Polish exporters offered an undertaking under Article 8 of the Basic 
Regulation. By offering these undertakings, each of the exporters commits itself, 
inter alia, to respect minimum prices for the different grades of exported zinc, 
which prices are directly linked to the LME prices for SHG zinc, during a specified 
period of reference. 
47.These undertakings should eliminate the injurious effects of dumping as envisaged 
by Article 8 (1) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and can be monitored 
effectively. The Commission consulted the Advisory Committee on the acceptance 
of these undertakings and no objections were raised. The undertakings offered were 
subsequently accepted by Commission Decision 97/ /EC (5). The investigation 
should therefore be terminated in respect of these exporters. 
See p. of this Official Journal. 
p. 17 
b) Definitive Duty 
48.A residual duty on imports of zinc originating in Poland should be imposed. This 
residual duty is deemed necessary in order to prevent that non-co-operating parties 
will benefit from their non-co-operation. Moreover, although in the present case 
the exporters have contested the figures concerning exports of zinc from Poland to 
the EC that were used by the Commission, they were not able to explain whether 
the discrepancy between these figures and their own exports represented indirect 
exports to the EC of their own products or exports of other zinc. The rate of duty 
should correspond to the injury margin, since that margin was found to be lower 
than the dumping margin. 
49.Russian producers/exporters did not co-operate in the investigation. It was 
therefore argued that the rate of duty for Russia should be at least as high as the 
rate of duty found for the non-co-operating Polish companies. This claim could not 
be accepted as the rates of duty are normally calculated on the basis of data 
established for each of the respective countries. Consequently and since the 
findings for Russia were only revised in respect of the normal value established for 
the market economy reference country, it is necessary to impose a definitive anti­
dumping duty on imports of zinc originating in Russia at the injury elimination 
level as the injury margin is lower than the revised dumping margin. 
I. DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF PROVISIONAL DUTY 
50.One of the importers referred to at recital 3 above, a company established after the 
publication of the notice of initiation, requested that its uncleared stocks held in 
bonded warehouse on 5 April 1997 be exempt from the definitive collection of the 
provisional anti-dumping duty, arguing that, in the light of its specific 
circumstances, it would have been its legitimate expectation that no duties would 
be imposed. However, since the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties took 
place further to a duly announced investigation, importers are, in principle, not 
p. 18 
entitled to an exemption on this point. The specific circumstances invoked by the 
importer are not such that an exception to this rule would be justified. 
51.As the co-operating Polish producers/exporters undertook to respect the 
undertakings as from 20 June 1997, subject to their acceptance by the Commission, 
it is appropriate not to collect the provisional anti-dumping duties on zinc 
manufactured by these exporters which offered these undertakings, and released 
into free circulation on or after that date. As regards imports of zinc manufactured 
by these exporters, which took place before 20 June 1997, the provisional anti­
dumping duties should, however, be collected at the rates that would have applied 
had the undertakings not been accepted (i.e. 5.2 % for Kombinat Gorniczco-
Hutniczy Boleslaw, Bukowno, and 14.0 % for Huta Cynku 'Miasteczko Slaskie', 
Miasteczko Slaskie). 
52.Regarding imports of zinc originating in Poland and manufactured by other 
producers than the two co-operating ones, and all imports of zinc originating in 
Russia, the provisional anti-dumping duties should be definitively collected only 
up to the rate of the definitive anti-dumping duties, i.e. 14.0 % and 5.2 %, 
respectively. 
J. FINAL PROVISIONS 
53.The Community industry concerned has been informed of the main facts and 
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition 
of definitive measures including the acceptance of undertakings and did not object. 
54.The exporters have been informed of the main facts and considerations underlying 
the intended Commission proposal for definitive measures. They have not made 
any further comments. 
fP-19 
55.In accordance with the Europe Agreement with Poland (6), the Association Council 
and the Polish government have been supplied with all relevant information and 
have been informed in advance of the outcome of the investigation laid down in 
this Regulation and the Commission Decision accepting the undertakings offered 
by the exporters. The Polish government explicitly expressed its satisfaction with 
the solution found for the two co-operating Polish exporters. 
56.1n accordance with the Interim Agreeement with the Russian Federation (7), the 
Russian government has been supplied with all relevant information and has been 
informed in advance of the outcome of the investigation laid down in this 
Regulation, 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 
Article 1 
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of unalloyed, 
unwrought zinc falling within CN codes 7901 11 00, 7901 12 10 and 7901 12 
30 originating in Russia and Poland. 
2. For the product referred to in paragraph 1 originating in the Russian 
Federation, the rate of the anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-
Community-frontier price, before duty, shall be 5.2 %. 
3. •• For the product referred to in paragraph 1 originating in Poland, the rate of the 
anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community-frontier price, 
before duty, shall be 14.0 % (Taric additional code 8900) except for imports 
manufactured and sold for export to the EC by 
- Kombinat Gorniczco-Hutniczy Boleslaw, Bukowno 
OJNoL348,31. 12. 1993, p. 2 
OJNoL247, 13. 10. 1995, p. 1 
p. 20 
(Tarie additional code 8965) or 
- Huta Cynku "Miasteczko Slaskie", Miasteczko Slaskie 
(Tarie additional code 8093), 
which shall be exempt from the duty, 
provided these imports are accompanied by a certificate EUR. 1 issued after 
19 June 1997, in which the name and address of either company are filled in 
under the heading "exporter" and the EC or one of its Member States is filled 
in as country of destination, and which is certified by the Polish authorities 
and issued in accordance with the provisions of the Europe Agreement 
establishing an Association between the European Communities and their 
Member States, on the one part, and the Republic of Poland, on the other part. 
4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties 
shall apply. 
Article 2 
1. The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty, imposed 
pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 593/97 shall be definitively collected at the 
rate of the duties definitively imposed on imports of unwrought, unalloyed 
zinc originating in Poland and Russia, respectively. However, without 
prejudice to paragraph 2, the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed on 
imports originating in Poland manufactured and exported by Kombinat 
Gorniczo-Hutniczy Boleslaw, Bukowno, shall be definitively collected at the 
rate of 5.2%. 
The amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duty 
shall be released. 
2. Provided that it is demonstrated that zinc of Polish origin was manufactured 
by either Huta Cynku "Miasteczko Slaskie", Miasteczko Slaskie, or by 
I P. 21 
Kombinat Gorniczo-Hutniczy Boleslaw, Bukowno, and released into free 
circulation on or after 20 June 1997, the provisional duty shall not be 
definitively collected. v 
Article 3 
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following 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. 
Done at Brussels, ________ 1997. 
For the Council 
The President 
IP-22 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(97) 440 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 02 08 11 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-450-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-24335-3 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
*3