COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
COM(94) 656 final 
Brussels, 12.12.1994 
Proposal for a 
IMPOSING A DEFINITIVE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ON IMPORTS OF 
UREA AMMONIUM NITRATE SOLUTION ORIGINATING IN 
BULGARIA AND POLAND, EXPORTED BY COMPANIES NOT 
EXEMPTED FROM THE DUTY, AND COLLECTING DEFINITIVELY 
THE PROVISIONAL DUTY IMPOSED 
(presented by the Commission) 

1 o-
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
(1.) By Regulation (EC) 1506/94 (1> the Commission imposed a provisional anti­
dumping duty on imports into the Community of urea-ammonium-nitrate 
solution ("UAN") originating in Bulgaria and Poland, which was extended by 
Regulation (EC) No 2620/94 (2) until 31 December 1994. 
(2.) Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty, the Bulgarian 
and Polish exporters and producers, an importers association and the 
complainants submitted comments in writing on the basis of which the 
Commission, where appropriate modified its final determinations. Comments 
made by the Bulgarian parties and the importers association relate to the 
injury and causality, those by the Polish producers to the determination of 
normal value and the export price and those of the complainants to the 
calculation of the injury threshold. 
(3.) Taking into account the submissions made, the dumping margin for 
Bulgarian imports was determined at a levé! of 33.3% , for the Polish 
producers the margins determined were between 27 and 40%. 
(4.) As far as the injury situation is concerned, the provisional determinations 
were confirmed, i.e. that low priced increasing volumes of the imports 
concerned caused injury in the form of financial losses to the Community 
industry. Given that it was also concluded that it was in the interest of the 
Community to remedy the injurious situation, the Commission has 
determined that anti-dumping measures should be imposed. 
(1) OJN°L162, 30.06.1994, p. 16 
(2) OJ N° L 280, 29.10.1994, p.1 
2^-
(5.) After disclosure the Bulgarian and Polish exporters and producers have 
offered undertakings. Whereas the Commission considered the offer of the 
undertaking by the Bulgarian parties acceptable as the undertaking ensured 
the removal of injury, the offer of the undertaking by the Polish parties was 
not considered acceptable. 
(6.) Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Article 10 and 12 of 
Regulation (EEC) N° 2423/88, the Commission, after consultation within the 
Advisory Committee, has accepted the undertaking offered by the Bulgarian 
parties and furthermore proposes to impose definitive anti-dumping 
measures in the form of a variable duty at a level of 89 ECU per tonne 
product concerning imports originating in Poland. 
(7.) The Commission in line with consistent practice in such circumstances, 
proposes to collect definitively the amounts secured by way of provisional 
anti-dumping duty. 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) N« 
IMPOSING A DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY ON IMPORTS OF 
UREA AMMONIUM NITRATE SOLUTION ORIGINATING IN 
BULGARIA AND POLAND, EXPORTED BY COMPANIES NOT 
EXEMPTED FROM THE DUTY, AND COLLECTING DEFINITIVELY 
THE PROVISIONAL DUTY IMPOSED 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) N° 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on 
protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the 
European Economic Community^), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 
522/94(2), and in particular Article 12 thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consultation 
within the Advisory Committee, 
Whereas: 
A. Provisional Measures 
(1.) The Commission, by Regulation (EC) 1506/94 <3) (hereinafter referred to as 
the 'provisional duty Regulation'), imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty 
(1) OJN°L209, 2.8.1988, p. 1 
(2) OJ No L 66, 10.03.1994, p. 10 
(3) OJN° L 162, 30.06.1994, p. 16 
on imports into the Community of urea-ammonium-nitrate solution ("UAN") 
originating in Bulgaria and Poland, and falling under CN code 3102 80 00. 
(2.) By Regulation (EC) No 2620/94 (4), the Council extended the validity of this 
duty until 31 December 1994. 
B. Subsequent Procedure 
(3.) Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty, 
• the Bulgarian exporter, Chimimport, and the Bulgarian producer, 
Agropolychim Devnia, 
• the Polish exporter, CIECH, and the two Polish producers, Z.A. 
Kedzierzyn and Z.A. Pulawy, 
the European Fertilizer Import Association ("EFIA") and 
• the European Fertilizer Manufacturer Association ("EFMA"), i.e. the 
complainants, 
submitted comments in writing. Parties who so requested were granted an 
opportunity to be heard by the Commission. 
(4.) Upon request, parties were informed of the essential facts and 
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the 
imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures and the definitive collection of 
amounts secured by way of a provisional duty. They were also granted a 
reasonable period within which to make representations subsequent to the 
disclosure. 
(5.) The parties' comments were considered, and the Commission altered its 
conclusions where deemed appropriate. 
(4) OJ N" L 280, 29 10.1994, p. 
(6.) Owing to the complexity of the case, in particular due to the number of 
producers located in the Community and due to the fact that the Polish 
producers and exporter as well as the producers located in the analogue 
country were newly operating under market economy conditions, the 
investigation overran the normal duration of one year provided for in Article 7 
(9) (a) of Regulation (EEC) No. 2423/88 (hereafter referred to as the 'basic 
Regulation'). 
C. Product under investigation; like product 
(7.) As no comments have been presented by any party regarding the product 
under consideration and the like product after the imposition of provisional 
anti-dumping measures, the findings set out in recitals (9) and (10) of the 
provisional duty Regulation are hereby confirmed. 
D. Dumping 
1. Bulgaria 
(8.) No new issues were raised by the Bulgarian interested parties concerning 
the determination of dumping. Therefore the conclusions reached at the 
provisional stage are hereby confirmed. 
The dumping margin for Bulgarian imports is therefore definitively determined 
at a level of 33.3% expressed as a percentage of the free-at-Community 
frontier price. 
2. Poland 
a. Normal value 
(9.) One Polish producer, Z.A. Pulawy ("ZAP"), as for the provisional 
determination, has submitted that the Commission should base the 
determination of normal value on the cost of production information 
specifically prepared by the company for its response to the questionnaire. 
However, ZAP did not supply any supporting information to show that this 
information better reflected the company's cost situation than its general cost 
accounting data. 
With respect to certain substantial monthly variations in ZAP's unit cost of 
production as contained in the company's general cost accounting data, the 
company submitted supporting documentation after the imposition of the 
provisional anti-dumping measures. However, the company was not in a 
position to explain the underlying reasons for the cost variations in any 
satisfactory manner. 
In these circumstances, it is considered that the cost of production 
information as contained in this producer's internal cost accounting records 
for the nine months during which the substantial variations did not occur, is 
representative and that the determination of the constructed normal value at 
the definitive stage should be based thereon. 
b. Export price 
(10.) One producer, Z.A. Kedzierzyn ("ZAK"), has submitted that adjustments 
made by the Commission, in the light of the missing and contradictory 
information received, to certain export transaction prices at the provisional 
stage in order to take into account commissions paid to the exporter via 
which the sales transactions were made, were not justified. However, ZAK 
did not submit any information in support of this claim showing that the 
approach taken by the Commission at the provisional stage was not 
appropriate. Therefore, the approach taken at the provisional stage is hereby 
maintained with respect to ZAK's export price. 
(11.) The other producer, i.e. ZAP, has made a submission concerning the 
completeness of the reporting of its export sales transactions. At the 
provisional stage the Commission had not considered the reporting complete 
on the basis of the information available. However, at the definitive stage, in 
the light of the additional and conclusive information provided, it is 
considered appropriate to alter this approach and to base ZAP's export price 
on the information submitted without making the adjustment made at the 
provisional stage. 
c. Comparison 
(12.) ZAP has requested that certain adjustments should be made in comparing its 
constructed normal value to its export price. It should be noted that such 
adjustments can be granted In accordance with Article 2 (9) and (10) of the 
basic Regulation if there are differences affecting price comparability. In such 
circumstances any claim must be proved to be justified. ZAP has not 
submitted any such justification, any quantification of its claim nor any 
supporting documentation. Therefore this claim has not been accepted. 
d. Conclusion 
(13.) in the light of the approaches and conclusions set out above with respect to 
the determination of normal value, the export price and the comparison 
between the two, the dumping margins at the definitive stage expressed as a 
percentage of the free-at-Community frontier level are set at the following 
level: 
ZAK: 40%. 
ZAP: 27%. 
(14.) For the case of any other Polish exporting producer or exporter who failed to 
reply to the Commission's questionnaire or did not otherwise make itself 
known, dumping was determined on the basis of the facts available in 
accordance with the provisions of Article 7 (7) (b) of the basic Regulation. 
In this connection, it is considered that the highest dumping margin 
determined with regard to a producer which had co-operated in the 
framework of this investigation was appropriate. 
This approach was considered necessary in order not to provide an 
unacceptable bonus for non-co-operation and to avoid creating an 
opportunity for circumvention. 
3. General: 
(15.) In view of the approach taken with respect to the determination of the normal 
value for Bulgaria and Poland described above, the Commission considers it 
necessary to foresee the review of the measures imposed in this Regulation 
after one year if changes in the production cost structure of the producers 
located in the exporting countries warrant such a review. 
E. Injury 
1. Volume of Community market 
(16.) Concerning total Community consumption of UAN, no new information was 
received after the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping measures. 
Therefore the size of this market provisionally established, i.e. 2.8 million 
tons in 1992 as well as in the investigation period measured in UAN with a 
nitrogen content of 32%, is hereby confirmed. 
2. Cumulation of dumped Bulgarian and Polish imports 
(17.) Based on Community import statistics, the Bulgarian exporter and the 
Bulgarian producer have reiterated the argument already put forward at the 
provisional stage, namely that imports into the Community originating in 
Bulgaria should not have been cumulated with those of Poland (see recital 
(32) of the provisional duty Regulation). 
(18.) It should be noted that Bulgarian imports of UAN in the investigation period 
represented a Community market share of about 7%. 
Given the justification provided in the provisional duty Regulation (see 
recitals (33) and (34) of the provisional duty Regulation) and the market 
position reached by Bulgarian imports, it is hereby concluded at the definitive 
stage that all the elements that justify the cumulation of imports for the 
purposes of the injury assessment, notably a parallel trend in volumes and 
prices are present in this proceeding. In particular neither the level of imports 
into the Community of UAN originating in Bulgaria or in Poland can be 
regarded as negligible. 
3, Volume and Prices of dumped Bulgarian and Polish imports 
(19.) With respect to the imports concerned, EFIA has submitted that these 
imports replaced UAN imports from third countries and that overall imports of 
UAN into the Community declined. Therefore, EFIA has concluded, that 
imports of Bulgarian and Polish origin cannot constitute an injury factor in the 
assessment of the situation of the Community industry. 
(20.) With respect to the situation concerning import volumes as described above, 
it is noted that an assessment of import volumes alone is not sufficient in 
order to evaluate the injurious situation of the Community industry. Such an 
evaluation must also cover the analysis of the prices of these imports. Such 
an analysis was made for the determination of the provisional anti-dumping 
measures and it was concluded, as set out in recitals (36) and (37) of the 
provisional duty Regulation, that the prices of the imports concerned 
decreased substantially and were at a level substantially below the prices of 
the Community industry. 
4. Situation of the Community industry 
(21.) Following the adoption of the provisional duty Regulation, EFIA has 
submitted that the Community industry has not lost market share up to the 
investigation period. EFIA has concluded that this development is not 
compatible with the conclusion on the injurious situation reached by the 
Commission at the provisional stage. 
(22.) It should be noted in this context that it is not considered necessary for all 
injury factors enumerated in Article 4 (2) (c) of the basic Regulation to show a 
negative trend in order to reach a conclusion that the Community industry 
has suffered material injury. The Community industry has kept its market 
share on the Community UAN market in 1992, slightly increasing it up to the 
investigation period as pointed out in recital (40) of the provisional duty 
Regulation. However, the stabilisation of the market position of the 
Community industry could only be achieved by a substantial reduction in the 
Community industry's sales prices (see recitals (38) to (41) of the provisional 
duty Regulation). It is this price reduction that has led to a substantial 
reduction of the Community industry's turnover and, ultimately, to substantial 
financial losses. 
5, Conclusion 
(23.) In conclusion, the significant price depression registered on the Community 
market and the negative development of the Community industry's financial 
situation leading to significant financial losses, led the Commission to 
conclude at the provisional stage that the Community UAN industry has been 
suffering material injury within the meaning of Article 4 (1) of the basic 
Regulation. 
This conclusion is hereby confirmed. 
F. Causation 
1. Impact of the imports concerned 
(24.) With respect to the causation of the Community industry's injury, EFIA stated 
that Bulgarian and Polish UAN import prices could not have caused injury to 
the Community industry. On the contrary, EFIA alleged that pricing behaviour 
between the companies of the Community industry caused substantia! 
downward price movements and, ultimately, injury to the Community 
industry. EFIA has stated furthermore that the imports concerned were not 
substantial enough in volume to influence prices on the Community UAN 
market. 
(25.) With respect to the above submission by EFIA, the Commission established 
that there were variations between the prices obtained by different 
Community producers. However, as already pointed out in the provisional 
duty Regulation in recitals (36) and (37), the investigation has confirmed that 
the imports concerned consistently undercut the Community producers' 
prices. The detailed analysis of the prices obtained by the Community 
10 
producers and the exporters' prices showed that the imports concerned did 
not merely follow price decreases of the Community producers but were 
consistently made at lower levels. Moreover, EFIA's claim that a combined 
volume of the UAN imports concerned which represents 27 % of the 
Community market is not sufficient in order to influence prices cannot be 
accepted, UAN being a commodity type product which is highly price 
sensitive. 
(26.) Finally, as far as the injurious situation of the Community industry is 
concerned, the investigation conducted revealed that the deterioration of the 
financial situation of the Community industry leading to substantial financial 
losses in the investigation period coincided with the surge of the low-priced 
imports concerned. In the light of the above, it is concluded that the imports 
concerned significantly contributed to the material injury suffered by the 
Community industry. 
2. Other factors 
(27.) EFIA has further argued that a decrease in consumption and demand on the 
Community fertiliser market was the cause of the Community UAN-industry's 
problems. Moreover, EFIA stated that the production overcapacity of the 
fertiliser producers concerned and price decreases for intermediary products 
of UAN were the reason for the Community industry's injurious situation. 
(28.) With respect to the above arguments, the Commission notes that, while it 
can not be excluded that the development of the Community fertiliser market, 
the industry's fertiliser production capacity and prices of intermediary 
products may have had some impact on the general situation of the 
Community UAN market and UAN industry, this cannot alter the fact that a 
continuous increase in import volumes of UAN originating in Bulgaria and 
11 
Poland together with prices which substantially undercut the prices of the 
Community industry, contributed to, and caused to a large extent, the 
difficulties which the Community UAN industry faces. Moreover, it has to be 
pointed out that the claims made by EFIA were largely supported by 
information referring to the Community fertiliser market as a whole, while the 
present anti-dumping proceeding deals specifically with UAN. In that respect, 
it must be emphasised that contrary to the development of the market 
situation for other fertiliser products, the demand situation on the Community 
UAN market, as shown in the provisional duty Regulation, was relatively 
stable only showing a slight decrease up to and including the investigation 
period (see recital (31) of the provisional duty Regulation). 
In the light of the above, it is concluded that the arguments and claims put 
forward by EFIA were based on statistical data which did not reflect the 
evolution of the UAN market and completely left aside a very significant 
reason of the Community industry's situation. Therefore these arguments 
and claims have to be rejected. 
3. Conclusion 
(29.) As no other arguments concerning the causation of the injury sustained by 
the Community industry were submitted after the imposition of the provisional 
anti-dumping measures and in the light of the above considerations, it is 
hereby concluded that the high volume, low-priced dumped imports of UAN 
originating in Bulgaria and Poland have, independently of other factors 
affecting the Community industry caused material injury to the Community 
industry, particularly in the form of heavy financial losses. 
12 
G. Community interest 
(30.) EFIA has submitted in this respect, that as the Community industry cannot 
satisfy the total Community demand of UAN, the imposition of anti-dumping 
measures limiting the sources of supply is not in the Community interest. 
(31.) While this argument appears to be in contradiction with the argument put 
forward by EFIA concerning causality in recital (26.) that the Community UAN 
industry has suffered injury due to its production overcapacity, it must be 
emphasised in any event that the aim of the imposition of anti-dumping 
measures is not to prevent imports of the product concerned into the 
Community. The aim is to eliminate the trade distorting effects of injurious 
dumping and restore effective competition. 
With respect to the various sources of supply available to Community users, 
there were substantial imports of UAN from other third countries before the 
substantial increase of the dumped imports concerned as was pointed out in 
the provisional duty Regulation (see recital (44). These sources of supply are 
potentially still available at the present time and there is no reason to believe 
that a shortage of the product will occur, bearing in mind that the Community 
market will be potentially more attractive for suppliers from third countries 
once a fair competitive situation is re-established. 
Given, that no other arguments concerning the Community interest have 
been raised after the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping measures it 
is hereby concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping measures is in the 
Community interest. 
13 
H. Anti-dumping measures 
(32.) After the imposition of the provisional duties, EFIA has submitted that the 
imposition of these duties was illegal, given the existence of a consultation 
clause in the trade agreements concluded between the Community and the 
two exporting countries. 
(33.) With respect to the two trade agreements concerned, these provide for the 
application of anti-dumping measures. Furthermore, the agreements 
specifically allow the imposition of anti-dumping measures in the case of 
particular urgency without prior consultation of the other party. It was 
concluded by the Commission that given the length of the investigation 
carried out prior to the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures and 
given the substantial dumping of exports and the consequent material injury 
inflicted on the Community industry established by the Commission, 
provisional anti-dumping measures had to be imposed urgently. 
It is therefore confirmed that the course of action taken therefore conforms 
with the obligations of the Community as foreseen in the trade agreements 
with the two exporting countries. 
(34.) Based on the conclusions of dumping, injury, causality and Community 
interest reached above, consideration was given to the form and level of anti­
dumping measures required in order to eliminate the trade distorting effect of 
the injurious dumping. 
In the present circumstances, the overall loss-making situation of the 
Community industry of UAN had to be taken into account. 
14 
(35.) Accordingly, the Commission calculated the level of prices at which the 
Community industry would be able to cover its average costs of production 
and to obtain a reasonable profit. 
As far as the determination of the reasonable profit is concerned, EFMA has 
claimed that the profit rate used by the Commission in the provisional 
determination, i.e. at a level of 5% on turnover, is too low. In particular EFMA 
has put forward that such a rate would not allow the Community UAN 
industry to sustain production of UAN in the EU, that the target price 
calculated would not allow the Community UAN industry to finance 
necessary replacement and investment costs and, finally, that the same 
profit rate should be used in the UAN proceeding as in a previous regional 
anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of ammonium nitrate5 ("AN") 
since AN is one of the two main ingredients of UAN. 
(36.) As far as the above claim by EFMA is concerned, the Community producers 
put forward in the response to the questionnaire a variety of profit targets 
used by the companies internally. These targets varied significantly among 
companies and in a number of cases were not established specifically for 
UAN but were the result of an overall group policy in the assessment of 
investment projects. In these circumstances, the Commission considered at 
the provisional stage that the Community industry had not specifically 
supported its claim on the level of a reasonable profit margin. After the 
provisional determinations EFMA has supplied no new information. 
For the provisional determination, the Commission derived the profit margin 
used by reference to the fact that the product concerned is a mature product 
needing only moderate funding for investment and research and 
development. No information has been received from EFMA justifying a 
different assessment at the definitive stage. 
Commission Decision (94/293/EC), OJ L 129, 21.5.94, p. 24 
15 
As far as the comparison with the regional AN case is concerned, the claim 
put forward by EFMA is not deemed justified. Indeed, the target price 
calculated in that anti-dumping proceeding took particular account of the 
production and sales situation of the regional industry concerned which was 
not identical to the one of the Community UAN industry. In particular the 
profit margin used in the AN anti-dumping proceeding was not applied on the 
actual costs of production of the industry concerned but on that industry's 
actual cost of production adjusted to exclude a cost increase during the 
investigation period due to factors other than dumped imports. 
In conclusion the claim put forward by EFMA has not been found acceptable 
and the profit margin determined at the provisional stage should be 
maintained for the definitive determination. 
(37.) On this basis and taking account of the Community industry's cost of 
production a minimum import price was calculated which would permit the 
Community industry to raise its prices to a profitable level. 
(38.) It was established that the injury thresholds thus established are lower than 
the dumping margins of both producers located in Poland and of the exporter 
located in Bulgaria, after taking into account all changes made on the basis 
of the assessments carried out after the imposition of provisional anti­
dumping measures. 
(39.) Given the material injury suffered by the Community industry in the form of 
financial losses, given the possibility of the absorption of an ad-valorem duty 
with a detrimental effect on the price situation in the Community market for 
this seasonal and highly price sensitive product and given the existence of a 
number of import channels via third country companies, it is considered 
appropriate to impose a variable duty at the level which would permit the 
16 
Community industry to raise its prices to profitable levels for imports invoiced 
directly by Bulgarian or Polish producers or by parties which have exported 
the product concerned during the investigation period and a specific duty on 
the same basis for all other imports in order to avoid the circumvention of the 
anti-dumping measures. 
I. Undertakings 
(40.) Having been informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis 
of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti­
dumping measures, the exporters and producers concerned located in 
Bulgaria and Poland have offered undertakings. However, the Commission 
only considers the offer of undertaking jointly offered by the Bulgarian 
producer and exporter as acceptable as only this undertaking would ensure 
that the injury inflicted on the Community industry was removed by raising 
the export price to a non-injurious level. In these circumstances the 
Commission has considered the offer of undertakings at a lower level by the 
Polish producers and exporter as unacceptable and has informed the 
exporters and producers concerned accordingly. 
The undertakings offered by the Bulgarian producer and exporter were 
accepted by Commission Decision 94/..../EC. 
Notwithstanding the acceptance of the undertaking, a residual duty should be 
imposed on imports originating in Bulgaria in order to avoid the circumvention 
of the anti-dumping measures. 
J. Collection of the provisional duties 
(41.) In view of the dumping margins established, the injury caused to the 
Community industry and of the latter's precarious financial situation, it is 
17 
considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of provisional anti­
dumping duty for all companies should be collected definitively, 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 
Article 1 
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of urea ammonium 
nitrate solution originating in Bulgaria and Poland and falling within 
CN code 3102 80 00. 
2. The amount of anti-dumping duty for imports originating in Bulgaria shall be 20 
ECU per tonne product (TARIC additional Code: 8792) except for imports of the 
product directly invoiced to an unrelated importer after the entry into force of this 
Regulation by the following exporters or producers located in Bulgaria: 
Chimimport Investment and Fertilizer Inc., Sofia, 
Agropolychim, Devnya, 
(TARIC additional Code: 8791) 
which shall be exempt from the duty subject to the above conditions pursuant to 
the acceptance of a joint undertaking by Commission Decision 94/.../EC. 
3. The amount of anti-dumping duty for imports originating in Poland shall be the 
difference between the minimum import price of 89 ECU per tonne product and the 
CIF Community frontier price plus the CCT duty payable per tonne product in all 
cases where the CIF Community frontier price plus the CCT duty payable per tonne 
product is less than the minimum import price and where the imports put into free 
circulation are directly invoiced to the unrelated importer by the following exporters 
or producers located in Poland: 
CIECH, Warsaw, 
18 
Zakiady Azotowe Kedzierzyn, Kedzierzyn, 
Zaklady Azotowe Pulawy, Pulawy, 
(TARIC additional Code:8793). 
For imports put into free circulation which are not directly invoiced by one of the 
above exporters or producers located in Poland to the unrelated importer the 
following specific duty is set: 
for the product originating in Poland: 22 ECU per tonne product (TARIC 
additional Code:8794) with the exception of the product certified to be 
produced by Zaklady Azotowe Pulawy for which the specific duty is 19 ECU 
per tonne product (TARIC additional Code:8795) 
4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties 
shall apply. 
Article 2 
The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to 
Regulation (EC) No 1506/94 shall be definitively collected in full. 
Article 3 
This Regulation shall enter 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, 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM (94) 656 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN il 02 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-94-674-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-83979-1 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg