ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES 
DE LA COMMISSION 
 
 
 
COLLECTION RELIEE DES 
DOCUMENTS "COM" 
 
 
 
 
COM (83) 151 
 
 
Vol. 1983/ 0043 
  
 
Disclaimer  
Conformém ent au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983 
concernant l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique 
européenne et de la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, 
p. 1), tel que modifié par le règlement (CE, Euratom) n° 1700/2003 du 22 septembre 2003 
(JO L 243 du 27.9.2003, p. 1), ce dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents 
classifiés présents dans ce dossier ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit 
règlem ent. 
In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 
concerning the opening to the public of the historical archives of the European Econom ic 
Communit y and the European Atom ic Energy Communit y (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as 
amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1700/2003 of 22 September 2003 (OJ L 243, 
27.9.2003, p. 1), t his file is open to the public. Where necessary, classified documents in this 
file have been declassified in conformity with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation.  
In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom  1. 
Februa r 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen  
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Europäischen Atomgem einschaft (ABI. L 43 vom  15.2.1983,  
S. 1), geändert durch die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1700/2003 vom 22. Septem ber 2003  
(ABI. L 243 v om 27.9.2003, S. 1), ist diese Datei der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit  
erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in dieser Datei in Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5  
der genannten Verordnung freigegeben.  
COMMISSION  OF THE  EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 
COM(83) 151 final 
Brussels,  15 March 1983 
Proposal  for a 
COUNCIL  DECISION 
terminating  the anti-dumping  proceeding  in respect of 
imports of acrylonitrile  originating  in the  United States 
of America 
(83/ /EEC) 
(submitted  to the  Council by the  Commission) 
COM(83) 151 final 

EXPLANATORY  MEMORANDUM 
1. On 3  April 1982, the Commission published a notice of the  initiation 
of an anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports of  acrylonitrile 
originating  in the United States of America. 
2. The  investigation  revealed that, depending on the year, 90% to 97% of 
these imports entered the  Community  as processing  traffic  (imports under 
cover of  customs  document  T1). 
The position  adopted with regard to temporary imports was obviously the 
same as that adopted in an  earlier  case where such imports had to be taken 
into account for the purpose of determining the incidence of  dumping,  i.e. 
the VAM case  (vinyl  acetate). 
The dumping  margin was therefore determined by including in the basis of 
calculation  all acrylonitri  le exports to the  Community,  irrespective  of 
whether  they were intended for  home use or effected under the inward 
processing  arrangements. 
3. The  investigation  revealed  dumping  margins varying from 11.5% to  16.41%, 
depending on the exporter. 
4. With regard to the  injury  caused, the  total volume  of acry  lonitrile 
imports  originating  in the United States - including T1 imports -  after 
having reached a  maximum  of 55 000 t in 1979, has subsequently fluctuated 
between  only 40 000 and 45 000 t, never exceeding 4.9% of the  total market. 
Although the complainants' production decreased by 5.7%  between  1979 and 
1981, and  their  total sales on the  Community  market went down by 25.8% -
from 659 000 t to 489 000 t -  this is due mainly to factors other than 
US imports: 
i) notably the  fact that, whereas  the level of acry  lonitri  le consumption 
on the open Community  market  fell by 12.5%  between  1979 and 1981, 
during the same period  Community  producers increased  their production 
capacity  by 60 000 t,  resulting  in a drop in the average rate of use 
of this capacity and  inevitable  pressure on  prices; 

- 2 -
ii) furthermore, the  volume  of imports against  which  no allegation  of 
dumping  was made  - therefore  originating  in countries other than USA -
rose from 60 000 t in 1978 to 104 000 t in 1981, i.e. a considerable 
increase  which  aggravated the imbalance on the  Community  market. 
In the light  of the foregoing, the  Commission  reached the conclusion that 
the injury  caused  by imports of  aerylonitri  le originating  in the United 
States could not be regarded as material, since the  real causes  underlying 
the difficulties  affecting  the Community  industry  were largely  the following: 
i) a sharp  drop in demand  on the  open market; 
ii) the simultaneous increase in production capacity; 
iii) the sharp increase in imports  from other countries. 
5. In these circumstances and given the very  keen competition on the world 
market in acrylic fibres,  of which  acry lonitri  le represents 40% of the 
production costs, the  Commission  considers that no  measures  are called  for 
at present to protect the  Community's  interests. 
6. The Member  States  were informed of  this proposal for the termination of 
the proceeding  when  the Anti-Dumping  Committee  was consulted. France and 
the United  Kingdom  expressed reservations on behalf of  their  producers. 

Proposal  for a 
COUNCIL  DECISION 
terminating  the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports of acrylo-
nitrile  originating  in the United States of America 
(83/ /EEC) 
THE COUNCIL  OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the  European  Economic  Community, 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No  3017/79  of 20 December  1979 
on protection against  dumped  or subsidized imports from countries not 
members  of the  European  Economic  Community 1 , as amended  by Regulation (EEC) 
No 1580/82 ,2 ", and in  particular  Article  9 thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal from the  Commission,  submitted following 
consultation  within the  Committee  set up lender the  above-mentioned  Regulation, 
Whereas: 
A. Procedure 
In April  1982 the  Commission  received a complaint from the  European  Council 
of Chemical Manufacturers' Federations (CEFIC), lodged on behalf of the 
great majority of  Community  producers of  acrylonitri  le, which account for 
some 90% of production in the  Community; 
The complaint contained evidence of the existence of  dumping  and resultant 
material  injury.  This was considered  sufficient  to justify  the initiation 
of a proceeding. The  Commission  therefore  announced,  in a notice published 
in the Official  Journal of the  European  Communities^,  the initiation  of 
an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of  aerylonitri  le  falling  within 
Common Customs  Tariff  heading ex  29.27,  corresponding to NiintXE  code 29.27-10, 
originating  in the United States of America, and  opened  an investigation. 
OJ No L 339, 31  .12.1979,  p. 1 . 
20J No L 178,  22.06.1982,  p. 9. 
30J No C 84,  03.04.1982,  p. 2. 

- 2 -
The Commission  officially  informed  the exporters  and importers  known to 
be concerned,  and the US  Government. 
The Commission  gave all interested parties  the opportunity  to make  their 
views known in writing  and request  a hearing. 
Most of the US  exporters  and a  number  of importers  known to be  concerned 
took the opportunity  to make  their views known in writing;  one of the 
exporters, Vistron Corporation, Cleveland,  Ohio,  requested  and obtained  a 
heari ng. 
A major Community  end user of acrylonitrile,  Courtaulds Ltd, Coventry, 
United Kingdom,  took the opportunity  to make  its views known in writing  and 
at a hearing;  the International  Rayon and Synthetic Fibres  Committee  also 
made its opinion  known in writing. 
For the purposes  of arriving  at a preliminary finding  as to  whether  dumping 
and injury  had occurred,  the Commission  endeavoured  to gather and check 
all the information  it considered necessary,  and carried  out on-the-spot 
checks at the  following  companies: 
- Community  producers: 
- CdF Chimie  - Norsolor, Paris  la Defense, 
- Erdblchemie  GmbH,  Koln, 
- ANIC,  Milano, 
- Montedipe,  Milano, 
- Border Chemicals,  London, 
- Monsanto  Europe  SA, Bruxelles, 
- DMS Marketing Centre Chemicals  and Polymers,  nv, Urmond 
- Exporters: 
- Dupont  de Nemours,  Wilmington,  Delaware, 
- Vistron Corporation, Cleveland,  Ohio, 
- Monsanto,  Saint-Louis, Missouri 
- ICC Industries, Inc.,  New York 
- Fallek Chemicals  Corp.,  New York 

- 3 -
The Commission  requested and obtained detailed written  comments  on the 
alleged  dumping,  injury  and its causes from complainant producers in the 
Community  and also from  most US exporters and certain importers; the 
information  obtained was checked by the  Commission  insofar as necessary. 
The investigation period adopted by the  Commission  to determine  whether 
dumping  had occurred was the twelve  months  to 31 March  1982. 
B. Normal  value 
In order to determine  whether  the imports originating in the United States 
of America had  been dumped,  the Commission  requested exporters to provide 
it with details  of their  sales during the investigation period on the US 
domestic  market  to non-associated customers, or  details  of their  production 
costs. 
In order to establish  whether  exporters had  engaged  in dumping  the Commission 
determined the  normal  value on the basis of the weighted average 
quarterly  selling  price at the FOB - place of production stage of acrylo-
nitrile  sold on the US domestic  market  to non-associated customers. In 
the case of  Dupont  de Nemours,  which refused to divulge the prices at which 
it effected sales on the domestic  market  or details  of its production costs, 
the Commission  considered that, in order not to  encourage  a refusal to 
co-operate, the  normal  value should be established every quarter on the 
basis of the highest  normal  value determined for the other producers 
exporting  to the  Community.  For exporters not  selling  on the domestic 
market,  the normal  value was established on the basis of the quarterly 
average of the other exporters'  selling  prices on the US  market. 

- 4 -
C. Export prices 
As regards export prices,  the Commission  adopted  the prices actually paid 
or payable  for exports to the  Community,  as ascertained  from the exporters' 
documents.  A number  of standard  adjustments  were made to  enable a FOB 
export price  to be  calculated.  The Commission  accordingly took into account, 
on the basis of the  checked  information,  the terms of payment,  transport 
costs to the  Community  frontier  and allied  costs  such as ^'nsurance 
premiums  and any  warehousing  costs. 
The Commission  included  in its calculation  of the  export prices all 
consignments  of acrylonitrile  to the  Community  which formed  the subject  of 
transactions during  the investigation period. 
In this connection, Vistron Corporation asserted that,  under the terms of 
Council Regulation  (EEC) No  3017/79,  transactions carried  out for the 
purposes  of inward processing  under  cover of customs  document  T1 should not 
be taken into  account  for calculating export prices.  Furthermore,  according 
to that firm, taking  such transactions into consideration  in the 
calculation  of dumping  margins  would run counter  to Article  VI of the  GATT 
and Article  2 of the  Anti-Dumping  Code . 
The Commission  considers that  it would be entirely  out of the  question  to 
exclude  from the basis of calculation transactions effected  under  cover 
of customs  document  T1 with customs  duties temporarily  suspended,  for the 
following  reasons  of principle: 
Agreementof  1979 on implementation  of Article  VI of the  General  Agreement  on 
Tariffs and Trade. 

- 5 -
- firstly,  there is a  possibility  that Community  producers  may suffer 
injury as a  result  of these imports  in respect  of/cus£oms  duties  are 
temporarily  suspended,  owing  either  to the  indirect effect  on Community 
market prices  or a reduction  in the  outlets offered  to producers; 
- furthermore, excluding  T1 imports  from the basis of calculation  of the 
export prices  would  offer considerable  scope  for abuse in  anti-dumping 
proceedings since  subsequent  release  for home use (or  re-export)  would 
be difficult  for either  the Commission or the  Member  States  themselves 
to substantiate. 
The Anti-Dumping  Code and Community  legislation  confine  the collection  of 
anti-dumping  duties  to goods  imported  and consumed in the  importing country. 
As for the  determination  of dumping, the  Anti-Dumping  Code and  Regulation 
(EEC) No 3017/79  specify that  the calculation should  be based not on 
import prices  but on  export prices,  which  implies that all export transactions 
should be taken into consideration. 
D. Comparison 
Accordingly,  in order to determine  whether  the goods were  being dumped/the 
normal values  as defined  above were compared  transaction  by transaction  at 
the FOB stage with  the export prices  to the Community at the  same stage, 
over the period  of the  investigation;  a quarterly  comparison  was effected, 
using weighted  averages  where  appropriate. 
Although Vistron Corporation disclosed details  of its  sales on the  domestic 
market and its  production costs,  it claimed that  the prices  charged  on 
sales on the US  domestic  market were not  comparable  with the prices  charged 
on its exports  to the Community.  According  to Vistron,  the US market is 
made up of  transactions carried  out under  long-term  or medium-term  contracts 
while export  markets,  including  the Community, are  spot markets,  and normal 
value ought  therefore  to be  calculated either  on the  basis of the  export 
price of US  acrylonitri  le to  third  countries, 
or by using a constructed value,  or by  correcting  selling  prices recorded 
on the domestic  market by the amounts  necessary  to establish comparability. 

- 6 -
After giving fulLconsideration to Vistron's  arguments,  the Commission  has 
concluded  that the prices ascertained by  it, whether  on the US  acrylonitri  le 
market or on exports to the  Community,  are intrinsically  comparable,  since 
both correspond  to normal  commercial  transactions. In addition, the 
adjustments  to the  normal  value requested by Vistron, to  reflect  the lower 
"infrastructure  costs"  which  the corporation and its US  customers  would 
enjoy if the  domestic  market  were also a spot  market,  are unacceptable  as 
they do not  correspond  to differences in conditons of sale  directly 
relevant to the sales  here considered. 
On the basis of the information available to it, therefore, the  Commission 
failed to find any differences  which  could  significantly  affect price 
comparability in  terms  of either physical characteristics, quantity, 
conditionsor  manner  of sale or  stage  of transaction,  between  sales of 
acrylonitri  le on the US  market  and exports to the  Community.  The only 
adjustments  made were the normal  ones for terms  of payment,  transport 
and related costs,  designed  to permit  comparison  at the FOB - place of 
production stage. 
E. Margins 
It emerged  from the above  facts that imports of the  product  in question 
originating  in the United States  were being dumped. 
The extent of  dumping  varied  from exporter to exporter. In  each case, 
the dumping  margin  has been taken  as the difference  between  the normal 
values, as defined  above,  and the prices  charged  for exports of  aerylonitri  le 
to the Community.  The dumping  margins  arrived at for the various exporters 
expressed  as a percentage  of the free at  Community  frontier  price, not 
cleared  through  customs,  were as follows: 

- 7 -
- Fallek  Chemical Corporation:  no exports  of US  aerylonitrile  during  the 
period covered  by the  investigation 
- ICC Industries:  dumping margins  varying  from 10.70%  to 
15.00%,  with a weighted average  of 12.76% 
- Dupont  de Nemours:  dumping margins  varying  from 10.68%  to 16.51%, 
with a weighted average  of 13.67% 
- Monsanto  Company:  dumping margins  varying  from 1.00% to  22.80%, 
the weighted average being 11.50% 
- Vistron  Corporation: dumping margins  varying  from 11.52%  to 20.07%, 
with a weighted average  of 16.41% 
F. Injury 
As regards  injury  to the  Community  industry  from imports  of dumped US  acrylo-
nitrile,  the information  available  to the  Commission  shows  that total 
imports  into the Community,  including  both goods  released  for home use and 
imports  under temporary admission arrangements, rose from  28 143  tonnes  in 
1978 to 54 251  tonnes  in 1979,  falling  back to ...*  tonnes  in 1981 and 
rising again to ...  tonnes  in the  first quarter  of 1982.  This corresponded 
to an increase  in the  market share taken  by these imports from  3.3% in 
1978 to 4.9% in 1981; for the  open market  only, the figures  are 5.8% and 
9.5% respectively. 
Depending  on the  year, between  90% and 97% of  these imports  come in  under the 
inward processing arrangements  (T1 imports). 
The figures  are confidential. 

- 8 -
According  to the evidence  available  to the Commission, the  selling  prices 
of the dumped  imports in the  Community  were only 3% lower than the prices 
charged by  Community  producers, but  were nevertheless below the  minimum 
level which would enable those producers to cover  their  costs. 
As regards the impact of the imports on the  Community  industry, the evidence 
available  to the  Commission  shows  that: 
- imports of US  acrylonitri  le on which  customs  duties  were temporarily 
suspended under the inward processing arrangements, which accounted for 
97% of imports from the USA during the period covered by the  investigation, 
exercised  a downward  pressure on prices on the  open Community  market 
in that during the quarterly  price negotiations the  main Community  end 
users aim not to buy  Community  acrylonitri  le at a higher  price  than they 
would have to pay for US  acrylonitrile  released for  home use (T2 imports), 
viz. the price  of (dumped)  T1 imports plus  customs  duties, which is below 
the break-even  level  for almost all producers; 
- the volume  of imports from the United States, whether under the temporary 
admission arrangements or for  home use, reduces  demand  for Community 
products  where,  as in  this case, they  come in at low prices over a long 
enough period; 
- consequently, imports of US  aerylonitri  le, most of which  come in under 
temporary admission arrangements, do cause  some  injury  to Community 
producers; 
- however,  the Commission  is firmly  of the opinion that the 5.7% drop in 
the complainants' production  between  1979 and 1981 (from 703 276 tonnes 
to 662 906 tonnes) and the 25.8% decline in  their  total  sales on the 
Community  market(from 658 953 tonnes to 488 806 tonnes over the  same 
period)are  due mainly to  factors  other than imports from the United States 
which are  affecting  Community  production  either  individually  or in 
combination; 

- 9 -
- in particular,  consumption  of acrylonitrile  on the  open Community  market 
fell from approximately 511 250  tonnes  in 1979 to an estimated 447 400 
tonnes in 1981, a decline of  12.5%,  while over the  same period  total 
Community  production capacity increased by 60 000  tonnes  (5%),  which 
is far in  excess  of the small increase (16 000  tonnes)  in captive 
use by industry; as a result, the  average  capacity  utilization  rate in 
the Community  industry  fell from 67% to 59%; 
- in addition, the  volume  of imports against  which  no dumping  is alleged 
increased  from 60 322  tonnes  in 1978 to 103 665  tonnes  in 1981, an 
increase of 71.8%  which  further  unbalanced  the Community  market. 
This indicates that the  slump  in demand  on the  open market  coupled with a 
simultaneous increase in production capacity and the steep  rise in imports 
against  which  no dumping  is alleged are the  main causes  of the  difficulties 
experienced by the  Community  industry and in particular the disastrous 
financial  results;  most producers  have made huge losses on  acrylonitri  le. 
Accordingly, while it accepts that  dumped  imports  have caused  some injury 
to Community  producers, the  Commission  cannot  conclude  from  the evidence 
available  to it that  such injury taken in  isolation  can be regarded as 
material. 
The Commission  finds confirmation for this  view in the fact that the 
authorities  in the  Member  States responsible for issuing processing 
authorizations  have regularly  renewed  such authorizations over the years/1 
which indicates on the basis of  Article  5 of Council Directive  L/773/EEC'  that 
the imports do not  conflict  with the essential interests of  Community 
producers. 
0J No L 58,  08.03.1969,  p. 1. 

- 10 -
AcrylonitriLe  is the  feedstock  for the  acrylic fibre  industry, accounting 
for 40% of its production costs.  Given  the harsh competition  on the 
Community  and world  acrylic fibre  markets,  protective  measures  would not 
be in the  Community's  interests  at present. Accordingly,  the investigation 
may be  closed  and the  proceeding  in respect  of imports  of aerylonitrile 
from the United States terminated. 
Two of the Member  States consulted  raised  objections. 
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: 
Sole Article 
The anti-dumping  proceeding  in respect  of imports  of acrylonitri  le 
originating  in the  United States  is hereby  terminated. 
Done at  Brussels, For the Council