ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES 
DE LA COMMISSION 
 
 
 
COLLECTION RELIEE DES 
DOCUMENTS "COM" 
 
 
 
 
COM (83) 418 
 
 
 
Vol. 1983/0 157 
  
 
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 Economic 
Community and the European Atomic 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), this 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. 
Februar 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 vom 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)  418 final 
Brussels,  24 June 1983 
Proposal  for a 
COUNCIL  REGULATION  (EEC) 
imposing  a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of 
4,4'  - Isopropylidenediphenol originating in the 
United  States of America 
(submitted to  the  Council  by the Commission) 
COM(83)  418 final 

EXPLANATORY  MEMORANDUM 
1 . On 14 April 1982, the Commission published a notice  initiating  an anti­
dumping proceeding concerning imports of 4,4' - IsopropyIidenediphenoI -
commonly known as "bisphenol" - originating in the United States of Amercia. 
2. The investigation revealed  that  one company - US Steel Chemicals - was respon­
sible  for 96% of the exports. The dumping marqins were established at 29.61% 
for "epoxy" quality bisphenol, 22.86% "polycarbonate" quality and 51.65% 
for other "off  spec"  bisphenols. 
Throughout the investigation US Steel refused to divulge the prices for its 
sales  on the domestic market or details of its production costs, so the 
normal values were established on the basis of the best information available 
(data supplied by the complainant, Rhone-Poulenc). These normal values were 
not, incidentally, disputed as such by the US exporter. 
3. With regard to  injury,  the  total  volume of Community imports of bisphenol 
shot up  from  an average level of 790 tonnes in 1973/79 to 4575 tonnes in 1980, 
to stabilize at around 2800 tonnes in 1981 and 1982. 
Correlatively, the share of the free market held by these imports increased 
considerably,  from  3.03% in 1979 to 16.23% in 1980, 10.74% in 1981 and 
16.6%  during the  first  half of 1982. 
Examination of the selling prices applied by the main firms operating on the 
market - complainant producer, non-complainant producers linked  with  expor­
ting  US companies, importers - revealed  that  prices on the Ccnimunity market 
had been pushed down significantly since the  first  quarter of l/.iO - i.e., 
when US Steel arrived on the Community market - up  until  the end of 
1981,  which initially obliqed the Community industry to align its prices on 
those of the United States imports and depressed prices by some 15% in one 
year. 
The subsequent rise in prices which occurred in 1981 was again hampered by 
imports in view of the sharp increase in the Community industry's cost prices. 
Undercutting of the Community producers prices by some 2 to 6% was frequently 
noted. 
4. Consequently,  the complainant industry's market share fell  from  49.13% in 1979 
to 44.87% a year later, to increase to only 49.11% in 1981. 

- 2 -
The main eLament of  injury  consists of the financial losses sustained by the 
com;.''  ,-'r  •>••  SHween the second quarter of 1980 and the end of 1981 as a resul 
of the  prtTL-'jre  on Community selling prices from imports from the United 
States  and uio  fall-off  in production resulting from the smaller market shan 
5. No factor wu : found to have caused material  injury  other than the imports 
from the United States in respect of which dumping has been proved. The Regul 
discusses  in detail the main counter-arguments put forward by the United 
States  party. 
6. In view of  t>ie  facts as finally established - summarized above - the Commissi) 
has come to 'he conclusion  that  the  injury  caused by imports of bisphenol opt 
ginating in the United States of America may be regarded as material and thi 
the Community's interests make it necessary to impose a definitive anti­
dumping duty of: 
- 14.17% for bisphenol of the "polycarbonate" and "epoxy" qualities 
- 36.65% for other bisphenols. 
7. The Member States were informed of this proposal when the Anti-Dumping 
Committee was consulted. The latter proved to be very much in favour of the 
proposed measure. 

Proposal  for a 
COUNCIL  REGULATION  (EEC) 
imposing a definitive anti-dumping  duty  on imports of 
4,4'  - Isopropylidenediphenol originating in the 
United States of America 
ITHE  COUNCIL  OF THE  EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES; 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) N° 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) N° 1580/82 2 
iand in particular Article 12  thereof. 
Having regard to the proposal presented by the Commission, after consultations 
within  the Advisory Committee set up under the said Regulation, 
Whereas  : 
A. Provisional measures 
1. Commission  Regulation (EEC) N° 163/83 3 imposed a provisional anti-dumping 
duty  on imports of 4,4'-Isopropylidenediphenol (commonly known as "bisphenol") 
originating in the United States of America. In view of the countei—arquments 
presented in particular by the principal United States exporter, US Steel 
Chemicals,  and by General Electric US and by General 
Electric  Plastics BV, the Commission notified the exporters concerned of 
its intention  to extend the provisional  duty  for a period of two months to 
enable the facts to be finally established. Since the exporters, who accounted 
for virtually the whole of the trade in question, did not raise any objec­
tion, the provisional  duty  was therefore extended, by Council Regulation (EEC) 
N° 1281/83 4 
for a period not exceeding two months. 
1 0J N° L 339, 31 .12.1979, p. 1 . 
2 0J N° L 178, 22 .6.1982, p. 9. 
3 0J N° L 23, 26 .1 .1983, p. 9. 
4 0J N° L 136, 25 .5 .1983, p. 12. 

- 2 -
B. Procedu; : for finally establishing the facts 
2. Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty, the principal 
US exporter United States Steel Chemicals, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and 
the European subsidiary of another US exporter, General Electric Company, 
Indiana, requested and were granted a hearing. 
These  companies and a Community end-user of bisphenol, Hoechst Holland NV, 
Weert, Netherlands, also took the opportunity of making known their views 
in writing. 
3. In the  lijht  of the information available to it at  that  time the Commission 
sought and obtained  further  information from the complainant producer, 
ProgeUc,  - on behalf of which the European Council of Chemical Manufacturer 
Federations  (Cefic) had lodged the initial complaint - and from other 
non-compiainant producers linked  with  American exporters, namely General 
Electric  Plastics BV, Shell International Chemical Company, Dow Chemical 
GmbH  and Dow H. und V.  GmbH.  The Commission also contacted certain Community 
consumers  of the product in question, which then gave their views on the 
duty. 
After undertaking a detailed examination of the information thus collected, 
the Commission made an inspection visit to the complainant and the premises 
of Shell ICC, London, United Kingdom. 
4. During the  further  examination of the facts conducted after the duty had 
been  imposed, the principal parties concerned were informed of the grounds 
on which definitive determination was envisaged. 
5. The arguments put forward by the parties concerned following the introduc­
tion  of provisional measures dealt primarily  with  : 
- the comparability of the products in question; 
- the determination of the dumping margins, in particular  with  regard 
to "off  spec"; 
- the determination of the  injury  caused by the dumped imports, the main 
points raised in this respect being the volume of imports in relation tc 
Community consumption, the impact of those imports on the complainant 
producer's  prices and other factors.which could.also have given rise to 
the injury  in respect of Progelec. 

- 3 -
C. Like product 
6. With regard to standard quality bisphenol (polycarbonate and epoxy) the 
argument  that  bisphenol of this quality sold on the United States market 
was not a like product,  within  the meaning of Article 2 (12) of Regulation 
(EEC)  N° 3017/79, in relation to  that  exported on to the Community market, 
has been withdrawn by the United States exporting party. 
The argument put forward instead is  that,  within  the  first  quality, 
"polycarbonate"  and "epoxy" bisphenols are not like products the one  with 
the other. 
7. With regard to "off  spec"  bisphenol, the position of the principal United 
States  exporter, US  Steel,  is completely unchanged, namely  that  : 
- "off  spec"  is a product which cannot be regarded as being similar to 
standard quality bisphenol; 
- it is a non-reproducible product - since it results from interruptions 
in the manufacturing process - of a quality very inferior to standard 
bisphenol; 
- failure to satisfy any one of the criteria generally used in the commercial 
specifications  for first-quality bisphenols was enough to downgrade the 
product,  limit  the number of applications and therefore lower its market 
value; 
- lastly, a very small number of end-users was able to use this product 
because  of its characteristics. 
8. The  further  investigation carried out by the Commission, for both the 
standard qualities and for "off  spec"  bisphenol, showed  that  : 
a) from the technical point of view, the main criteria determining the 
quality of bisphenol were the freezing point, colouration, the 
levels  of phenol and iron and, lastly, the presence of impurities; 
b) the commercial specifications relating to these.criteria for polycai— 
bonate and epoxy bisphenolswere, even in the opinion of the non-
complainant producers linked to US exporters and of the Community  con­
sumers  of bisphenol, very much the same in the USA as in the Community; 

- 4 -
c) wit,' ird to "off  spec",  failure to observe one or other of the 
comn.t-"!. ial specifications relating to these criteria did not  neces-
sar-  y mean, for the end-user,  that  difficulties would be encountered 
in i ng the product but  that  generally the cost of using it would be 
higher,  varying according to the application and, in particular, according 
to the impurities; 
the extra cost of using it, although very  difficult  to quantify, was 
generally low; 
this 'off  spec"  was supplied regulary and for a number of STX-month 
periods between the end of 1980 and the beginning of 1982 to certain 
Community consumers and met the specifications agreed to by those 
consumers,  thus contradicting the argument  that  it was non-reproducible 
and that  each batch was "unique" in nature; 
a large proportion of the Community end-users is able to use this 
"off  spec"  bisphenol, for a substantial range of applications; 
the US bisphenol invoiced as "off specification" is of a quality 
which could, in certain batches, have been equivalent to  that  of 
epoxy-type first-quality bisphenol. 
9. In view of these results the Commission is therefore convinced  that 
all types of bisphenol marketed in the Community, whether of United 
States  or Community origin, are products having at least "characteristics 
closely  resembling" one another. 
They  are therefore indeed "like products"  within  the meaning of 
Article 2 (12) of Regulation (EEC) N° 3017/79. 

- 5 -
D. Dumpi ng 
10. The principal US exporter, US  Steel,  persisted in its refusal to d'wulge the 
prices  for its  sales  on the domestic market or details of its production 
costs. 
11. Since  no new argument has been put forward regarding standard quality 
bisphenol (po lycarbonate and epoxy), the preliminary determination of 
dumping is now regarded as final. The weighted average dumping margins, 
expressed  as a percentage of the CIF price free-at-Community  frontier, 
not cleared through customs, are 22.86% for polycarbonate quality and 
29.61%  for epoxy quality. 
12. With regard to bisphenol invoiced as "off  spec",  in respect of which the 
Commission  investigation has confirmed  that  it was indeed a product similar 
to the other types of bisphenol marketed in the Unite;' States and the 
Community, account must be taken, when establishing the -or, .31 value, of 
the extra costs which may be involved for the end-user -r. employ inn 
bisphenol which does not completely satisfy the  first  qu icy standards 
because  of certain differences in the physical characteristics of the 
product. 
The Commission has therefore endeavoured to determine th< effect of those 
differences on the market value of "off-spec" bisphenol the United 
States.  In view of the  total  lack of cooperation  from  tht. nrmin exporter in 
question,  referred to in  point  10 above, and of the similarity of the 
US Steel and Progelec technologies, the Commission has  thr-r  fore adjusted 
the "off-spec" normal value in the  light  of the best information available. 
On the basis of the accounting principle followed by the complainant for 
its second quality, namely  that  only the variable production costs are, 
in addition to a reasonable  profit  margin, charged to the substandard 
products - and by applying to the normal value of $ 1168.45/metric ton 
for first-quality  US bisphenol the appropriate adjustment at the 
ex-works stage, the normal value for "off  spec"  has been established at 
$ 939.97. 
On the basis of this normal value, the average dumping margin for "off  spec" 
bisphenol eventually comes to 51.65%. 
13. Given the revision of the dumping margin for "off  spec"  bisphenol, the overall 
average dumping margin for all the qualities together comes to 34.12% for 
all United States bisphenol exports to the Community during the period 
covered by the investigation. 

- 6 -
E. Injury 
14. In the  light  of the information collected and verified after the provisional 
duty was imposed a detailed review was undertaken of the Commission's 
provisional conclusions via an analysis of the bisphenol market. 
This  review confirmed the analysis of the  injury  set out in Regulation (EEC) 
No 163/83 and made it possible to be more specific about certain points 
relating to : 
the actual  size  of the free and captive markets, which made it possible 
for the market shares held by the various firms to be calculated exactly; 
the impact of US imports on the complainant producer's prices; 
the role played by producers linked  with  US exporters; 
generally speaking, the possible  causes,  other than dumped imports, of 
the injury  affecting Progelec. 
15. The Community's imports of bisphenol originating in the United States of 
America  went from an average value of (* ) in 1978-79 to (* ) in 1981 
fell again to (* ) in 1981, to increase again to (* ) in 1982, of 
which (* ) was for the  first  six months alone. 
Correlatively, the share of the  total  market (sales on the free market and 
internal use) (i.e., some 130 000 t) accounted for by these imports rose 
from 0.61% in 1978 to 3.73% in 1980 and stood at 1.60% in 1981 and 2% in 198 
Since  virtually all the imports from the United States were intended for 
the free market, which is the market on which the complainant operates, 
penetration of the product originating in the United States was also 
measured  with  reference to the free market in the Community : 2.70% in 1978, 
3.03%  in 1979, 16.23% in 1980 - corresponding to US Steel's arrival on the 
Community market at the end of 1979 -, 8.16% in 1980 - which reflects 
US Steel's production difficulties  that  year - and a  further  increase to 
16.6%  during the  first  half of 1982, when the effect of the notice initiate 
this proceeding had not yet been  felt. 
(*) Confidential figures. 

- 7 -
16. With regard to the impact of US imports on the complainant producer's prices, 
it was alleged by the principal US exporter  that  prices on this market were 
determined exclusively by the interrelation between Progelec - which is the 
principal European supplier of bisphenol on the free market but which does 
not produce resins - and the other non-complainant European producers, 
Dow and  Shell  - which themselves are integrated downstream (resins) to a very 
large extent,  with  the result  that  they are principally interested in resins 
rather than bisphenol  itself. 
Consequently,  it was alleged by US Steel  that  US imports had not influenced 
free market prices in the Community at all, as the company's policy had 
been  to align itself on the prices established by competition between 
Progelec,  Dow and  Shell. 
A comparison of the selling prices charged by the complainant producer 
and the non-complainant producers at the delivered-to-customer stage, 
in each of the principal Member States concerned  with  the prices of the 
dumped US products clearly showed : 
- that  the massive intrusion of US bisphenol on the Community market at the 
end of 1979 depressed prices  throughout  1980 to a level which, in absolute 
terms, was 15% below their previous  level;  that  during 1980 the prices 
at which the US imports were resold were more  often  than not 3% to 5% 
below the prices charged by the complainant, despite the downard 
alignment of the latter's prices;  that  US bisphenol prices were,  from  the 
second  quarter of 1980 to the last quarter of 1981 inclusive, below the 
minimum level required for the Community industry to cover its production 
costs,  despite the reduction in the costs of its raw materia Is(benzene) 
throughout  1980;  that  the other non-complainant producers, which were 
integrated as regards resins - and hence  less  vulnerable than the 
complainant on the free market - evidently chose not to engage in a 
process  of pushing prices down and consequently generally maintained 
their prices above those of US Steel and the complainants; 
- that  as  from  the last quarter of 1980, the increase in the supply 
costs  of benzene, the raw material  from  which the complainant's bisphenol 
is derived, was such on the Community market  that  the complainant was 
unable tomaintain its prices at the depressed level they had reached as a 
result of the competition  from  the United States in 1980 and had no 

- 8 -
alternative but to try and reflect its higher production costs in its selling 
prices;  this rise in prices in 1981 coincided  with  a temporary reduction in 
exports from the United States;  that,  however, the increase in prices by the 
complainant was  less  than would have been warranted by the rise in its cost 
prices;  that  during 1981 the prices at which US imports were resold were more 
often than not 2 to 5% below the prices charged by the complainant;  that, 
consequently, it was not  until  the  first  quarter of 1982  that  the complainant 
ceased  to sell its bisphenol at a  loss. 
It is therefore quite clear, in particular because of the price undercutting 
noted,  that  the part played by bisphenol imports from the United States -in 
respect ci which dumping had been proved - was not a passive one on the free 
market in the Community. Although,  until  the middle of 1981, the general 
trend of the bisphenol market reflected the variations in the price of 
benzene  and although subsequently the demand for epoxy resins exerted an 
underlying influence, it is nevertheless  true  that  the fall in bisphenol prices 
during 1980 and up  until  the beginning of 1981 would not have occurred -
at least not to the same extent - in the absence of the dumped imports from 
the United States.  Since  the integrated producers - Dow and  Shell  - were 
producers of resins rather than of bisphenol it was not in their commercial 
interests to lower their prices on the free market to a level which would 
enable their consumers - i.e. resin producers - to attack them on the 
market for their own resins. 
17. With regard to the other factors also capable of causing  injury  to the 
complainant it was alleged by the United States party  that,  in general, 
Progelec's  financial difficulties stemmed from the role played by the non-
complainant producers, Dow and  Shell,  on the bisphenol market from the angle 
of both prices and production capacity or from  that  of competition on 
non-Community markets: 
«* With regard to prices it has already been stated  that  in 1980 and for most 
of 1981 the  attitude  of the non-complainant producers had been not to get 
involved in pushing down prices. This was reflected in the fall in 
their share of the  total  market, which declined from 45.09% in 1979 to 
38.43%,  to rise again to only 42.11% in 1981. 

- 9 -
With regard to production capacity, which, it is alleged,had become 
excessive  before the arrival of US Steel as a result of the installation 
in Europe of non-complainant producers linked  with  US producers, it 
should  be noted  that  the average plant utilization rate was 71.6% in 1979. 
However,  with  the flood of imports from the United States in 1980, this 
rate fell to 58.9%, to climb back to only 60.8% in 1981. 
Lastly,  it must be stressed  that  the competition from non-complainant 
producers  affecting Progelec's sales outside the Community has steadily 
declined  since 1979 as these companies' extra-Community exports fell 
from ( * ) in 1979 to ( * ) in 1980, ( * ) in 1981 and ( * ) 
in 1982, i.e., a 64.6% fall in four years. 
18. It was also alleged  that,  of the possible causes of injury to Progelec 
other than the imports in question, the decline in demand for bisphenol in 
the Community was at the root of the complainant's difficulties. 
In this connection, information checked by the Commission shows  that  demand 
for bisphenol on the free market in the Community has declined to a much 
lesser  extent than was initially estimated at the time of the provisional 
determination. Thus total sales on the free market  felt  from 29 414 tonnes 
in 1979 to 28 190 tonnes in 1980 (i.e., by 4.16%) and to 27 271 tonnes in 
1981 (only 7.28% down on 1979). 
Correlatively,  the volume of the complainant producers' sales fell by 12.50% 
in 1980 compared  with  1979 - despite the alignment of its prices on those 
of imports from the United States, and its market share fell from 49.13% 
in 1979 to 44.87%. 
In 1981 the volume of Progelec's sales was up on 1980 but it stood at a level 
which was still 7.35% below  that  for 1979, and the market share also rose but 
without returning to its 1979 level. 
It is therefore clear  that  sales lost by the complainant producer in 1980, and 
to a lesser extent in 1981, were well in excess of the fall-off in demand 
and coincided  with  the arrival of large quantities (4 575 tonnes) in 1980 
of US bisphenol on the free market in the Community. 
* Confidential figures. 

- 10 -
Moreover,  it is clear  that  the loss of the complainant's market share did 
not ben-fit the non-complainant producers, as is shown by the decline in 
the la•  rer's  market share from 45.09% in 1979 to 38.43% in 1980. Furthermore, 
it is iobable  that  one of the factors responsible for this decline in the 
non-coinplainant producers market share is, in addition to the impact of 
imports from the United States, the decision taken by these producers to 
process  more bisphenol  into  pre-resins, this being reflected incidentally 
in the confidential figures which the Commission  possesses  regarding 
internal use. 
Lastly,  it has been clearly established  that  the moderate contraction of 
the free market since 1979 has affected the Community industry considerably 
more  than  imports of bisphenol from the United States. 
19. Consequently, the facts as finally established (points 2 to 18) indicate 
that  tho  injury  caused by dumped imports of bisphenol originating in the 
United States must, judged in isolation, be regarded as material. 
F. Community interest 
20. The principal US exporter asserted, as did two Community end-users of 
bisphenc-l,  SCADO  NV and Hoechst Holland NV Netherlands,  that  the imposition 
of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of US bisphenol would  limit 
the supply possibilities of the consumers -which are also manufacturers 
of resins - and  that  in this respect such a definitive decision would be 
contrary to the interest of the Community. 
21. In this context, the Commission re-examined the impact of any protective 
measures  on derived products containing principally bisphenol and came to 
the conclusion  that  it was not in the interests of the Community to leave 
the main  non-integrated European producer, the essential supplier of the 
free market, in a situation where it was totally vulnerable to imports which 
have  barn  proven to have been dumped and which had caused it material  injury. 
The protection of the interests of the Community industry therefore make 
it necessary to impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bisphenol 
originating in the United States of America. 

- 11 -
G. Definitive duty 
22. In the Light of the facts as finally established and- in particular, the 
Community industry's production costs, the Commission re-examined the price 
needed  to enable the Community industry to stop selling its bisphenol at a 
loss  and to make a reasonable  profit.  In this context, it seemed fair to 
draw a distinction between, on the one hand,  first  quality products 
(polycarbonate and epoxy) and, on the other, bisphenol not conforming to 
the usual standards. 
On this basis the Commission came to the conclusion  that  a definitive anti­
dumping duty of  less  than the amount of the provisional duty should be 
sufficient to eliminate the  injury  done to the Community industry by the 
dumped imports. 
H. Undertakings 
23. An undertaking was offered by the principal US exporter, US  Steel. 
The Commission, following consultation,  felt  that  it should not, because 
of the features of the Community bisphenol market and the risks of 
circumvention, envisage the acceptance of such an undertaking. 
24. With regard to the exporting companies which could not, because of the 
absence  of exports during the reference period, be exonerated from the charge 
of dumping, the Commission determined  that  it was not appropriate to exclude 
them from the duty because of the likely impossibility for these companies 
to export competitively  without  dumping. 
I. Collection of the amounts lodged by way of provisional duty 
25. In view of the final determination of dumping and of the material  injury 
resulting therefrom, the sums lodged by way of security for the 37.6% 
provisional anti-dumping duty must be collected up to the amount of the 
duty definitively imposed. 
HAS ADOPTED  THIS  REGULATION  : 

- 12 -
Article 1 
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of 4,4' 
Isopropylidenediphenol falling  within  subheading 29.06 B IV of the 
Common  Customs  Tariff,  corresponding to  NIMEXE  code 29.06 _37, originating 
in the United States of America. 
2. The definitive duty shall be fixed, as a percentage of the net free-at-
Community frontier price, not cleared through customs, at : 
- 14.17% for the "polycarbonate" or "epoxy" qualities; 
- 36.6 r./o for bisphenol having other characteristics. 
The frt.9-at-Community frontier price, not cleared through customs, shall be 
net if the terms of sale provide  that  payment shall be made  within  30 days 
of thv date of consignment; it shall be increased by 1% for each month 
for which payment is deferred. 
3. The previsions in force  with  regard to customs duties shall apply to the 
duty imposed in paragraph 1. 
4. For the purposes of this Regulation only bisphenol having all the following 
characteristics  will  be regarded as bisphenol of "polycarbonate" or "epoxy" 
quality : 
Freezing  point 
(dry basis) > 155. 0°C 
Colouration in solution 
(25 g  of product/35 ml methanol) /10° C  APHA/HAZEN 
Phenol  level /p.10% 
Iron  level <^1.5 ppm 
Impurities none 

- 13 -
Article 2 
The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty in accordance 
with  Regulation (EEC) No 163/83 shall be definitively collected 
up to the amount of the duties definitively imposed in respect of the 
different qualities of the product, referred to in Article 1(2) of this 
Regulation. 
Article 3 
This  Regulation shall enter  into  force on the day of its publication in 
the Official Journal of the European Communities. 
This  Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in 
all Member States. 
Done  at Brussels, For the Counci I