EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 6.11.2008 
COM(2008) 701 final 
  
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No …/.. 
imposing a definitive anti-dum ping duty and collecting defini tely the provisional duties 
imposed on imports of citric acid origin ating in the People's Republic of China 
(presented by the Commission) 
 
EN 2   EN EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM  
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 
110 • Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 
This proposal concerns the application of Council Regul ation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 
December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, as last amende d by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 
of 23 December 2005 (the 'basic Regulation' ) in the proceeding concerning imports of 
citric acid originating in the People's Republic of China. 
120 • General context 
This proposal is made in the context of th e implementation of the basic Regulation and 
is the result of an investigation which was carried out in line with the substantive and 
procedural requirements laid out in the basic Regulation. 
139 • Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 
There are no existing provisions  in the area of the proposal. 
141 • Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 
Not applicable. 
2. CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
 • Consultation of interested parties 
219 Interested parties concerned by the proceeding have alre ady had the possibility to 
defend their interests during the investigation,  in line with the provisions of the basic 
Regulation. 
 • Collection and use of expertise 
229 There was no need for external expertise. 
230 • Impact assessment 
This proposal is the result of the im plementation of the basic Regulation. 
The basic Regulation does not foresee a gene ral impact assessment but the requirement 
that the measures should not be contrary to the "Community interest" means that the 
assessment of the wider impact of the m easures forms an integral part of the 
investigation. 
3. LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 
305 • Summary of the proposed action 
 
EN 3   EN On 4 September 2007, the Comm ission announced by a notice ('notice of initiation'), 
published in the Official Journal of the European Union, the initiation of an anti-
dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Community of citr ic acid originating 
in the People's Republic of China. 
The anti-dumping proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 23 July 
2007 by European Chemical Industry Council  (CEFIC) on behalf of a Community 
producer representing a major proportion of the Community production of citric acid 
containing evidence of dumping and of ma terial injury resulting there from. 
On 3 June 2008, the Commission impose d, by Regulation (EC) No 488/2008, a 
provisional anti-dumping duty on imports into the Community of citric acid originating 
in the People's Republic of China.  
The enclosed Commission proposal for a Coun cil Regulation contains the definitive 
conclusions regarding dumping, injur y, causality and Community interest. 
Member States were consulted during the Anti-Dumping Committee of 14 October 
2008. 12 Member States were in favour of the proposed course of action, 5 opposed 
and 10 abstained. 
It is proposed that the C ouncil adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation which 
should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by 3 December 2008 
at the latest. 
310 • Legal basis 
Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against 
dumped imports from countries not member s of the European Community, as last 
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 of 23 December 2005. 
329 • Subsidiarity principle 
The proposal falls under the ex clusive competence of the Co mmunity. The subsidiarity 
principle therefore does not apply. 
 • Proportionality principle 
The proposal complies with the proportionali ty principle for the following reason(s). 
331 The form of action is descri bed in the above-mentioned ba sic Regulation and leaves no 
scope for national decision. 
332 Indication of how financial and admini strative burden falling upon the Community, 
national governments, regional a nd local authorities, economic  operators and citizens is 
minimized and proportionate to the object ive of the proposal is not applicable. 
 • Choice of instruments 
341 Proposed instruments: regulation. 
 
EN 4   EN 342 Other means would not be adequate for the following reason(s). 
The above-mentioned basic Regulation doe s not foresee alte rnative options. 
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 
409 The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 
 
EN 5   EN  
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No …/.. 
imposing a definitive anti-dum ping duty and collecting defini tely the provisional duties 
imposed on imports of citric acid origin ating in the People's Republic of China 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 
Having regard to the Treaty esta blishing 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 Community1 (the basic 
Regulation) and in partic ular Article 9 thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal submitted by th e Commission after cons ulting the Advisory 
Committee, 
Whereas: 
A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES  
(1) On 4 September 2007, the Commission published a notice2 initiating an anti-dumping 
proceeding on imports into the Community of citric acid origina ting in the People's 
Republic of China ('the PRC'). On 3 June 2008, the Commission, by Regulation (EC) 
No 488/20083 ('the provisional Regulation) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty 
on imports of citric acid originating in the PRC. 
(2) It is noted that the proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged by the 
European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC ) (‘the complainant’) on behalf of a 
producer representing a major proportion of the total Community production of citric 
acid, in this case more than 25 %. 
(3) As set out in recital (14) of the provi sional Regulation, the inve stigation of dumping 
and injury covered the period from 1 July  2006 to 30 June 2007 ('investigation period' 
or 'IP'). With respect to the trends releva nt for the injury assessment, the Commission 
analysed data covering the period from 1 Ja nuary 2004 to the end of the IP ('period 
considered'). 
B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE 
                                                 
1 OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 
23.12.2005, p. 17). 
2 OJ C 205, 4.9.2007, p. 14. 
3 OJ L143, 3.6.2008, p.13.  
 
EN 6   EN (4) Following the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of citric acid 
originating in the PRC, several interested  parties submitted comments in writing. The 
parties who so requested were also gr anted the opportunity to be heard.  
(5) The Commission continued to seek and veri fy all information it deemed necessary for 
its definitive findings. In par ticular, the Commission intensified the investigation with 
regard to Community interest aspects. In this connection, one a dditional verification 
visit was carried out after the imposition of the provisional measures at the premises of 
the following user of citric acid in the EU: 
– Reckitt-Benckiser Corporate Serv ices Ltd, Slough, UK and Nowy Dwor, 
Poland 
In addition, as explained in detail in re cital (11) below, veri fication visits were 
carried out at the premises of the following exporting producers: 
– Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co. Ltd. ("Laiwu Taihe"), Laiwu City, Shandong 
Province 
– Weifang Ensign Industry Co. Ltd. ("Weifang Ensign"), Changle City, 
Shandong Province 
(6) All parties were informed of the essentia l facts and considerations on the basis of 
which it was intended to recommend the im position of a definitive anti-dumping duty 
on imports of citric acid originating in the PRC and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty. They were also granted a period within which they could make representa tions subsequent to this disclosure. 
(7) The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered 
and, where appropriate, the findi ngs were modified accordingly. 
C. INITIATION OF THE CASE,  
PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 
(8) One exporting producer reiterated the clai m that the public version of the complaint 
did not contain any prima facie evidence of ma terial injury to the Community industry, 
preventing the interested parties from exerci sing their rights of defence. According to 
this exporting producer the case should not have  been initiated due to  lack of sufficient 
evidence included in the complaint. In this respect, it should be noted that the public 
version of the complaint contained all th e essential evidence a nd non-confidential 
summaries of data provided under confidential cover in order for interested parties to 
exercise their right of defence throughout the proceeding. Therefore, this argument 
should be rejected. 
(9) Some interested parties argue d that the product con cerned, as set out in  recital (16) of 
the provisional Regulation, and th e like product are not alike as stated in recital (18) of 
the provisional Regulation sin ce they would not share the same physical and chemical 
characteristics and are not used for the sa me purposes. According to those interested 
parties the statement in recital (18) of th e provisional Regulation fails to address the 
arguments brought forward during the investig ation and is in contradiction with the 
adjustment made by the Commission in th e undercutting calcula tions for de-caking 
certain quantities of the produc t concerned after arrival in the EU. It is firstly noted 
 
EN 7   EN that the investigation has shown that the product concerned and the like product are 
both used in the same basic applications, i.e. mainly for the household cleaning (auto 
dish wash products, detergents, water so fteners) and as additives in food and 
beverages, but also in the personal care/co smetics area. The claim that the product 
concerned would in fact not be used by certain users in the detergents, food and 
beverages industry beca use of its smell and/or colour was not further substantiated by 
evidence. The investigation has shown that only in one niche application, i.e. the 
pharmaceutical area, only the European citric acid was indeed used because of the cost 
of the special compliance test which is  required. Since the pharmaceutical area 
represents only a small portion of the users' total business, running the compliance test was not considered as economically justifia ble business decision. Secondly, there is no 
contradiction between the adjustment made  in the undercutting calculation for de-
caking parts of the product c oncerned after importation as me ntioned in recital (64) of 
the provisional Regulation and the statemen t that both products are alike as it is 
sufficient that the product concerned a nd the like product share the same basic 
chemical, physical and technical characterist ics and have the same basic uses which is 
the case. It is further noted that the caking as such does not happen because of specific 
characteristics of the Chinese product, but happens because every citric acid, 
regardless of its origin, due to its chem ical composition shows a tendency to cake 
when being exposed to humidity and change s of temperature. As  naturally only the 
product concerned is exposed over a longer pe riod of time to humidity and changes of 
temperature during the shipping time to th e EU, the problem mainly occurs for the 
product concerned, but not exclusively. Ther efore, the adjustment simply takes 
account of the fact that the de-caking incu rs additional costs mainly for the product 
concerned as the quantities that are affect ed by the caking either are de-caked (by 
breaking and sieving or liquefying the caked product) before further selling or are sold 
with a rebate. Thus, this claim should be rejected.  
(10) In view of the above, it is definitively concluded that the produc t concerned and citric 
acid produced and sold in the analogue c ountry, Canada, as well as the one produced 
and sold by the Community industry on the Community market are alike, within the 
meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regul ation and recitals (15) to (17) of the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  
D. DUMPING 
1. General  
(11) At the provisional stage of the i nvestigation the Market Economy Treatment 
("MET")/Individual Treatment ("IT") clai ms of all known exporting producers were 
investigated. Only a number of the e xporting producers had been included in the 
sample and one company was granted indivi dual examination. In their comments to 
the provisional Regulation a number of par ties have claimed that this approach has 
some shortcomings. The matter was therefore reconsidered and, in view also of the 
fact that it became possible given the circum stances of the case such as for example 
the available resources to increase the numb er of companies that could reasonably be 
investigated, it was finally decided that sa mpling should not be applied. Given that 
every cooperating company has been granted at  least IT at the provisional stage, an 
individual duty rate should be established for each of them. As a consequence, three 
companies not selected in the sample or individually examined at the provisional stage were requested to submit questionnaire rep lies. However, only two of these companies 
 
EN 8   EN submitted a questionnaire reply. The third company did not submit a questionnaire 
reply and was not investigated further. 
2. Market Economy Treatment ("MET") 
(12) The company referred to in recital (27) of the provisional Regulat ion insisted that the 
subsidy mentioned in that recital was not for the purposes of th e product concerned 
and that the non-payment of rents was jus tified by private inter-group arrangements 
for the setting off of profits against rent  due. However, in the absence of any new 
elements or information concerning the issue,  and in view of the distorting effects on 
the accounting of the practices mentioned c oncerning rent, the conc lusions in respect 
of this company remain unchanged and are hereby confirmed. 
(13) Further to provisional disc losure one group of companies referred to in recital (25) of 
the provisional Regulation claimed that it ha d received loans on the basis of a detailed 
financial analysis of one of the banks and after having been granted a high credit 
rating. However, the fact that a bank forma lly carried out an analysis and granted a 
high credit rating does not e liminate the fact that the company in question gave 
guarantees to other companies despite havi ng mortgaged the majority of its non-
current assets, nor the fact that the loans granted to the company in question were 
granted by a bank found to be under State in fluence. Therefore, the conclusions in 
respect of this company remain  unchanged and are confirmed. 
(14) One of the companies referred to in reci tal (26) of the provisi onal Regulation insisted 
that it was penalized for the fact that it s majority shareholder had acquired land use 
rights for a good price and then correctly had them re-valued according to market price 
developments. However, the enormous difference between the acquisition price and later evaluations (1000-2000%) could not be ex plained. Therefore, in the absence of 
any new elements or information con cerning the acquisiti on and subsequent 
revaluation of the land use ri ghts and in view of the ad vantages that the company 
received by obtaining assets for prices  significantly below market value, the 
conclusions in respect of this company remain unchanged and are confirmed. 
(15) In the absence of any other comments conc erning MET, recitals (25) to (30) of the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 
3. Individual treatment (‘IT’) 
(16) Five companies or groups of companies that were not granted MET fulfilled all the 
criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation and were granted IT. One 
company which had been granted provisiona lly IT, failed to further cooperate and, 
thus, no IT was finally granted (see recitals (11) and (34). 
4. Normal value 
(17) As explained in recital (11) above, fo llowing comments to the provisional Regulation, 
it was decided that sampling should not be applied and the three companies not 
selected in the sample or individually examined at the provisional stage were 
requested to submit questionnaire replies. Normal value was established for one of 
these companies (Laiwu Taihe), which was granted MET and which submitted a questionnaire reply. 
 
EN 9   EN 4.1. Companies or groups of compan ies which could be granted MET 
(18) Since the sole company which could be granted MET and which was examined 
individually at the provisi onal stage of the investigati on did not submit any comments 
on normal value, the findings at recitals (35)  to (39) of the provisional Regulation are 
hereby confirmed. 
(19) As for the only other company which was granted MET (Laiwu Taihe) and which was 
further investigated for the reasons explained at recital (11) above, it was first verified 
whether the company's total domestic sales of the like product were representative within the meaning of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of the product concerned were slightly below 5% of  the exports of the like product to the 
Community. However, such lower ratio is  nonetheless of sufficient magnitude to 
provide for a proper comparison and the do mestic prices of the like product are 
considered representative given also the overall domestic  sales of the company in 
question. Therefore, they were us ed to determine normal value. 
(20) For each product type sold for export to the Community by Laiwu Taihe, it was 
established whether a directly comparable  product type was sold on the domestic 
market. Product types were considered to be directly comparable when they were of 
the same product type (defined by the chem ical composition), comparable granulation 
and packing. It was established that for only one product type sold for export to the 
Community a directly comp arable product type was sold on the domestic market. 
(21) It was subsequently examined whether th e domestic sales of this  product type could be 
regarded as being sold in the ordinary cour se of trade pursuant to  Article 2(4) of the 
basic Regulation. It was established that th ere were profitable dom estic sales of this 
product type to independent customers duri ng the IP, and therefore in the ordinary 
course of trade. 
(22) Since the volume of profitable sales of th is product type represented 80% or less of the 
total sales volume of that type, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of profitable sales of  that type only. 
(23) As domestic prices of Laiwu Taihe coul d not be used in orde r to establish normal 
value for the other product types, normal value was constructed in accordance with 
Article 2(3) of th e basic Regulation. 
(24) When constructing normal value pursuant to  Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, the 
amounts for selling, general and administrative costs and for profits have been based, pursuant to Article 2(6) firs t introductory subparagraph of  the basic Regulation, on the 
actual data pertaining to the production and sale s, in the ordinary course of trade, of 
the like product, by the Laiwu Taihe. 
4.2. Companies or groups of companie s which could not be granted MET 
(25) In their comments to th e provisional Regulation, some parties claimed that Canada 
would not be an appropriate  analogue country given the fact that the USA have 
recently initiated an anti-dumping proceeding ag ainst citric acid originating inter alia 
in Canada. Thailand was therefore again broug ht forward as an alternative analogue 
country. However, the analysis showed th at while anti-dumping measures on citric 
 
EN 10   EN acid originating in Canada were not in force during the IP, anti-dumping measures 
were in force during the IP on citric acid or iginating in Thailand. The latter measures 
were imposed by India and consisted in  substantial anti-dumping duties of 
USD 374.36/tonne, which only expired in Augus t 2007, i.e. two mont hs after the end 
of the IP. Therefore, also considering the ar guments already mentioned at recitals (42) 
to (43) of the provisional Re gulation and the fact that th e US investigation on citric 
acid originating in Canada was still ongoing at the mo ment of finalising this 
investigation, it is concluded that there is  no reason why Thailand should be preferred 
to Canada as an analogue country. 
(26) According to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for the exporting 
producers mentioned in recital (11) above that were not granted MET had to be 
established on the basis of th e prices or constructed va lue in the analogue country. 
5. Export Price 
(27) In the case of the two companies whic h were further investigated for the reasons 
explained at recital (11) above, the expor t price was established following the same 
methodology explained at recital (45) to  (47) of the provisional Regulation. 
(28) Since no companies submitted any commen ts on export prices, the findings contained 
in Recitals (45) to (47) of the pr ovisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 
6. Comparison 
(29) In its comments to the provisional Regul ation and to the definitive disclosure, one 
group of companies contested the deduction of a notional commission for sales via a 
trader in the PRC, given that the trader was an integral part of the group. It was, 
however, established that the trading compa ny did indeed perform the function of an 
independent trader, and that the economic  result of the relationship of the two 
companies is that of a principal and an agent.  It was established that the trader was not 
only trading products produced by related co mpanies, but also products produced by 
independent producers. Moreover, the compan y in question did also sell directly to 
non-related customers. Therefore, the clai m was rejected, and pursuant to Article 
2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation, an allowa nce based on SG&A and profit of unrelated 
importers was deducted. 
(30) In its comments to the provisional Regulation, one e xporting producer claimed that 
cost for currency conversion s hould not be taken into account, as pursuant to Article 
2(10)(j) of the basic Regulation, exporters shall be granted 60 days to reflect a 
sustained movement in exchange rates dur ing the investigation period. This claim 
could be accepted, and the dumping margin of the exporting producer was adjusted 
accordingly. 
(31) In the provisional Regulation, a deduction to the export price was made in respect of 
non-refundable VAT charged on ex port sales, pursuant to Article 2(10)(b) of the basic 
Regulation. One exporting producer claime d in its comments to the provisional 
Regulation that no such adjustment to th e export price should have been made, as 
Article 2(10)(b) of the basi c Regulation would only relate to normal value. It is 
acknowledged that the adjustment provide d for under Article 2(10)(b) of the basic 
Regulation only refers to the calculation of the normal value. In fact the above-
 
EN 11   EN mentioned deduction to the export price is due and should be done pursuant to Article 
2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation. While ex amining this claim, it was found that a 
clerical error had been made in calcula ting the adjustment for the company in 
question, and that the same error had been ma de in respect of other companies. These 
inaccuracies were rectified and have led to slight downward corrections in the 
dumping margins previously calc ulated for these companies. 
(32) In examining the claim referred to in the previous recital, it was found that the 
necessary adjustment had not been made  in the case of one company which was 
granted individual treatment. This has been re ctified and results in a slight increase in 
the dumping margin for that company. 
(33) In the absence of any other comments in respect of comparison, and apart from the 
changes indicated at recitals (30), (31) and (32) above, recitals ( 48) to (50) of the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 
7. Dumping margin 
(34) In the case of the two companies whic h were further investigated for the reasons 
explained at recital (11) above, the dumping margin was established by following the 
same methodology explained at recital (51) of the provisional Regulation. In the case 
of the one company which did not submit a questionnaire reply and was not further 
investigated, as explained at  recital (11) above, this company is considered as non-
cooperating and findings are based on facts available in accordance with Article 18(1) 
of the basic Regulation. In this case, considering th e high level of cooperation 
mentioned at recital (19) of the provisi onal Regulation, the company has been 
attributed the highest dumping margin f ound in respect of all other companies. 
(35) The dumping margins of all the comp anies which had already been individually 
investigated at the provisional stage were recalculated, to correct the inaccuracies 
referred to at recitals (30), (31) and (32) above. This re calculation has lead to slight 
corrections of the dumping margins. 
(36) In the absence of any new element, the conclusions in recital (53) of the provisional 
Regulation, which relates to the leve l of cooperation, are hereby confirmed. 
(37) On this basis, the definitive dumping ma rgins expressed as a percentage of the CIF 
Community frontier price, duty unpaid, are: 
Company Definitive 
dumping margin 
Anhui BBCA Biochemical Co., Ltd 58,1 % 
DSM Citric Acid (Wuxi) Ltd 19,1 % 
RZBC Co. Ltd 59,8 % 
RZBC (Juxian) Co. Ltd 59,8 % 
 
EN 12   EN TTCA Co., Ltd 57,1 % 
Yixing Union Biochemical Co. Ltd 55,7 % 
Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co. Ltd 6,6 % 
Weifang Ensign Industry Co. Ltd 53,5 % 
All other companies 59,8 % 
E. INJURY 
1. Community production and Community industry 
(38) Some interested parties claimed that S. A. Citrique Belge N.V. ceased production after 
the IP and was only trading the product c oncerned imported from its related company 
in China (DSM Wuxi), arguing, thus that Ci trique Belge should not constitute part of 
the Community industry. This claim was howev er not substantiated by any evidence 
and from the data submitted by Citrique Be lge, it follows that the company continued 
production.  
(39) One interested party also complained th at in recital 56 of th e provisional Regulation 
only a range of imports of Citrique Belge from its related Chin ese producer during the 
IP was given. This party claimed that th e trend of all imports of the Community 
industry from related and unrelated compan ies should be given for the whole period 
considered since imports constitute an important factor for the assessment of 
community production and consequently for th e conclusion of the ex istence of injury. 
The investigation has indeed shown that  during the whole period considered the 
imports of the Community industry were insi gnificant, i.e. between 1% and 6% of 
production – this range is given for confid entiality reasons. Therefore the argument 
should be rejected and recitals (55) to ( 58) of the provisional Regulation are hereby 
definitively confirmed.  
2. Community consumption 
(40) As no new and substantiated informati on was received with regard to Community 
consumption recitals (59) and (60) of th e provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 
3. Imports from the country concerned 
(a) Volume and market share of the imports concerned, import prices 
(41) With regard to import volumes, market  share and prices, no new and substantiated 
information was found or received, therefore,  and in the absence of any claims or 
arguments from any interested parties relating to volume and prices of the imports concerned, recitals (61) to (63) of the provisional Regul ation are hereby confirmed.  
(b) Price undercutting 
(42) During the provisional st age of the investigation, in order to compare the product 
concerned and the citric acid produced by the Community industry at the same level of 
 
EN 13   EN trade, an adjustment for the mark-up (inc luding SG&A) of unrel ated importers was 
made in the price undercutting calculation and, additionally, an adjustment was made 
for special treatment costs incurred by impor ters in the Community to de-cake certain 
volumes of the product concerned before further selling. However, due to a minor 
revision of the data concerni ng the level of trade adjust ment, the weighted average 
price undercutting margin which was calculated and found to be 17,42% has been revised downwards to 16,54%.  
(43) After final disclosure, one Community producer claime d that the level of trade 
adjustments should also be made in relati on to sales of the Co mmunity industry, i.e. 
that its sales made via trader s should be taken into account. In this respect it should be 
noted that a level of trade adjustment wa s made indeed for th e Community industry's 
sales prices before comparing them with th e import prices of the product concerned.  
(44) The same Community producer also re quested that the adjustment for special 
treatment costs to de-cake cer tain volumes of the product concerned should also apply 
to the like product. However, this request was not further substantiated with data 
concerning the specific costs incurred by th is Community producer and, thus, it could 
not be accepted. In view of the above, recital (64) of th e provisional Regulation is 
hereby confirmed. 
4. Situation of the Community industry 
(a) General 
(45) Some interested parties claimed that  the Commission had not analysed thoroughly all 
injury indicators and thus, no proper and co mplete link between the situation of the 
Community industry and the Chinese imports  was established. In particular, it was 
claimed that there had been no assessment of the positive developments of certain injury indicators. It should be noted that  even though some injury indicators show a 
positive development which was acknowledged in recital (79) of the provisional 
Regulation, the overall picture points to a deterioration of the situation of the 
Community industry. The moderate impr ovement of production, production capacity, 
capacity utilisation, sales volum e and unit price levels as well as the increased cost 
efficiency described in recital (76) of th e provisional Regulation reflect the efforts of 
the Community producers to remain competitive over the period considered and to benefit from the increased consumption. However,  as can be seen in recital (68) of the 
provisional Regulation, despite these efforts the Community industry lost 5 percentage 
points (i.e. the market share decreased from  54% to 49%) of its market share which 
was mostly taken by Chinese low-priced, dum ped imports. As an aggravating factor, it 
is also mentioned that the Community industry could have expected to gain some of 
the market share hold by those three Commun ity producers of citric acid which closed 
down as of 2004. But on the contrary, the Comm unity industry could neither take over 
customers from the three closed EC-produc ers, nor benefit from the increased 
consumption. This significant loss of ma rket share coupled with the clearly 
deteriorating financial indicators, i.e. prof itability, return on investment and cash flow, 
show that the overall situation of the Commun ity industry deteriorated over the period 
considered and appeared to be at its wors t during the IP. In addition, stocks' decrease 
can not be assessed as a positive development of the Community industry's situation in this case since is can not be considered as a meaningful indicator, given the nature of 
the product which does not al low long-term storage.  
 
EN 14   EN (b) Investments and ability  to raise capital  
(46) One interested party argued that investme nts are not constant in this field but follow 
certain investments cycles. While even under normal market conditions  it can certainly 
not be expected that important investments would be made every year, the fact that 
over the whole period neither  of the two remaining Commu nity producers carried out 
any important investment is considered as  a sign that the low profitability (which 
turned into loss as of 2006) di d not allow any important inve stment to be made. It is 
hence considered that investment is a partic ularly meaningful injury indicator in this 
case.  
(47) Finally, the Community producers' ability to raise capital should be considered. In this 
regard the investigation has shown that both Community producers, due to the 
deteriorating citric acid business environment, had difficulties to raise capital. 
(48) One interested party claimed that the comp lainant was at least able to raise capital for 
other products since it announced in Februa ry 2007 the construction of a new glucose 
plant. In this respect it is noted that the scope of the investigation is limited to the 
ability to raise capital in relation to th e product in question, i.e. citric acid, which 
appeared to have been negatively affected by the financial situa tion of the Community 
industry. 
(49) Based on the above, the conclusion set out in recital (72) of the provisional Regulation 
on the Community industry's investment is confirmed. 
(c) Profitability and return on investment 
(50) One interested party claimed that the findi ngs set out in recital (73) of the provisional 
Regulation could not be reconciled with th e accounts of both Community producers in 
particular none of the accounts would show the mentioned extraordinary restructuring 
cost. In this respect, it is noted th at, throughout the peri od considered, the 
extraordinary result of one Community producer  has to a large extent been affected by 
restructuring efforts, which was presented in  the accounts either as a cost or a revenue 
depending on whether it concerns the additi on or the release of a provision and by 
royalties paid to the mother company in Switzerland. Therefore, it was deemed more 
appropriate to use the operating result as a ba sis for the injury analysis rather than the 
net profit.  
(51) The same party claimed that the fine for anti-competitive behaviour that was imposed 
in 2005 on both mother companies of the Community producers could have influenced the profit situation of the Community indu stry. Any effects stemming from the fine 
(both the adding and releasing of provisions ) have been recorded under extraordinary 
result. As mentioned in the pr evious recital, the operating result has been used as an 
injury indicator in this proceeding. Ther efore, the fine that was imposed on the 
Community producers, could not have affected  the profit situation used in the injury 
analysis. In addition, it s hould be noted that Community  industry was loss making as 
of 2006 until the end of IP. Therefore, the trends as presented in the provisional 
Regulation are hereby definitively confirmed.  
(52) Several interested partie s pointed to some inconsistency between the trend concerning 
profitability and the return on investment. I ndeed, in contrast to profitability which 
 
EN 15   EN was established by expressing the operati ng profit on sales of the like product to 
unrelated customers as a percentage of the turnover of these sales, return on 
investment was calculated as  the net profit in percen tage of net book value of 
investments. In order to be consistent in the calculation of all injury indicators, the 
calculation of return on investment was revised, based on the operating profit in 
percentage of the net book va lue of investments. The revised figures are as follows: 
 2004 2005 2006 IP 
Return on total 
investments (index) 100 148 -147 -207 
(53) The corrected figures however follow the same trend and theref ore do not alter the 
conclusion drawn in recital 74 of the provisional Regulation, which is hereby 
confirmed.  
5. Conclusion on injury 
(54) In the absence of any new and substa ntiated information or argument concerning 
production, sales volume, market shares , unit sales price, stocks, cash flow, 
employment, productivity, wages and magnitude  of the dumping margin, the findings 
in recitals (66) to (71), (73)  and (75) to (78) of the pr ovisional Regulation are hereby 
definitely confirmed. In addition, the corrected  figures given for return on investment 
leave unaffected the trends as set out in recital (73) to (74)  of the provisional 
Regulation. Therefore, considering the clearly  deteriorating financ ial indicators, such 
as profitability, return on investment and cash flow coupled with the significant loss of 
market share, the conclusion laid down in recital 81 of the provisi onal Regulation that 
that the Community industry suffered materi al injury is definitively confirmed.  
F. CAUSATION 
1. Effect of the dumped imports 
(55) As mentioned in recital (42) above, it is definitively concluded that during the IP, the 
average prices of imports from the P RC undercut the average Community industry 
prices. Following a minor revision in the ca lculations, the average undercutting margin 
was found to be 16,54%. This slight downwards  revision cannot affect the conclusions 
on the effect of the dumped imports set out in  recitals (83) to (85) of the provisional 
Regulation, which are hereby confirmed.  
2. Effect of other factors 
(a) Self-inflicted injury 
(56) Some importers claimed that the Commun ity industry self-inflicte d the injury as it 
followed a 'price-over-volume' strategy, i.e. to serve only the high-end segment of the 
market, abstaining from producing and selli ng the low-end product. According to the 
same importers the consequence was that the Community industry could not benefit 
from the increased demand of low-end citric  acid, and thereby lost market share and 
deteriorated its financial performance. The investigation however showed that both, the product concerned and the like product are basically used in the same applications 
and compete mainly in the same segments (see recital (9), with the exception of one 
 
EN 16   EN niche market representing a small portion of  the European citric acid market share, 
which was supplied so far solely by the Community industry. The investigation has 
indeed established that the Community indus try was present in the low-end segment of 
the market. Therefore, this argument should be rejected.  
(57) Moreover, some interested parties consid ered the lack of any investment during the 
period considered and in particular duri ng the years when the Community industry 
achieved better results, i.e. 2004-2005, as a factor which c ontributed to the market 
share loss and consequently to the deterior ation of its situation. The investigation 
showed the Community industry did not opera te at full capacity a nd that its capacity 
utilisation was stable throughout the peri od considered. Therefore, some production 
increase would have been possible in case of stronger demand without further 
investments. Moreover, given that the pr ofitability of the Community industry was 
insufficient, i.e. below target profit, thr oughout the period consider ed and even turned 
into negative, it is considered to be an ec onomically justifiable business decision not to 
invest significant amounts in the production of the like product. This argument is 
therefore not convincing and should be rejected. 
(b) Rise in the costs of raw ma terials, rising energy prices 
(58) Almost all interested parties reiterated th eir claims that any inju ry found would be due 
to the reform of the sugar market and the consequent abolition of the production 
refunds in 2006 and/or th e rising energy prices.  
(59) One interested party claimed that in  the annual report of one Community producer 
relating to 2007, it was st ated that the raw material availability was limited due to the 
European sugar regime which resulted in higher cost. In this respect, it is noted that 
the mentioned Community producer does not use sugar as main raw material, but 
molasses and as explained in recital (89) of  the provisional Regulation was thus never 
subject to production refunds. The cost increase for molasses was however not 
substantial, but corresponding to the increas e of world market prices for sugar. As 
concerns the situation of th e other Community producer which was described in detail 
in recitals (90) to (94) of the provi sional Regulation, no ne w or substantiated 
information or argument was received. The ove rall conclusion laid down in recital (93) 
that the reform of the sugar market had no considerable impact on the cost situation of the Community industry is hereby confirmed. 
(60) The same interested party claimed that  there would indeed be a link between sugar 
prices and biofuel production as this was acknowledged in a study of the Commission 
on "The causes of the Food Price Crisis"
4. In this respect it is noted that the 
Commission, as already stated in recital ( 98) of the provisional Regulation, had access 
to the cost data of both Community pr oducers and was therefore in a position to 
analyse the concrete cost of raw materi als for both Community producers concerning 
the production of citric acid. Any link betw een sugar prices and biofuel production has 
therefore been investigated and taken into account in assessing the impact of EU sugar 
market reform and the increasing biof uel production. Based on this, it could be 
                                                 
4 European Commission "The Causes of the Food Price Crisis: Sugar", 20 May 2008, 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/perspevct/foodprice/sugar_en.pdf. 
 
EN 17   EN concluded and is hereby definitively confirmed that these factors had no considerable 
impact on the injury found and suffered by the Community industry.  
(61) In addition, it has to be stated that any cost increase concerning molasses, sugar or 
glucose or energy which was acknowledged in the provisional Regul ation (see recitals 
(93) and (96)) are not the s ource of the injury of the Community industry as in a 
normal market situation, th e Community industry could have passed on these 
increased costs at least to a certain extent to its customer s. However, the investigation 
showed the increasing presence of dumped imports which undercut the prices of the 
Community industry significantly. Thus, as stat ed in recital (84) of the provisional 
Regulation there was a price depression a nd the Community industry could only pass 
on a fraction of its own cost increases to it s customers, which led to the deterioration 
of its financial situation and a further loss of market share.  
(62) Finally, it has to be mentioned that the investigation has shown that the Chinese costs 
of production of citric acid had also increased. These in creased costs were however 
not translated into higher sales prices, but  on the contrary, unit sales prices even 
decreased by 6 percentage points during the pe riod considered as shown in recital (63) 
of the provisional Regulation. 
(63) On the basis of the above, the claims shoul d be rejected and recitals (88) to (99) are 
hereby definitively confirmed. 
(c) Price cartel of Community industry 
(64) Some interested parties reiterated their claims that the loss of market share for the 
European producers was self-inflicted because  of the citric acid cartel (1991-1995) in 
which both the complainant and the other Eu ropean producer participated and which 
was claimed to be the reason of the boost of Chinese citric acid imports. This allegation was not further substantiated and, therefore, did not alter the conclusion 
drawn in recital (100)  of the provisional Regulation that the big boost of the dumped 
imports happened several years afte r the cartel ceased to exist. 
(65) On the basis of the above, it is defini tively concluded that th e consequences of the 
anti-competitive practices in  which the Community industry took part did not 
contribute to the material injury suffered by the Community industry. 
(d) Currency fluctuations 
(66) Some interested parties reiterated their cl aims that the drop in prices of Chinese citric 
acid during the IP was largely due to the unf avourable exchange rate from the USD to 
EUR, the fact that prices for citric aci d are generally expressed in USD on world 
markets and the difficulty to adjust prices , which are generally negotiated annually, to 
the new currency situation.  
(67) It is recalled that in recital (104) of the provisional Regulation, the impact of any 
currency fluctuation is considered to be not  significant because even if the devaluation 
of the USD against the EU R between 2004 and the IP which amounted to 4,97%, after 
a fine-tuning of provisional calculations, would have be en fully disregarded there 
would still be undercutting of over 10%.  
 
EN 18   EN (68) Consequently, it is definitively confirmed that the appreciation of the Euro in respect 
of the USD was not such as to break the ca usal link between the established injury to 
the Community industry and the imports conc erned and the claim should, therefore, be 
rejected. 
3. Conclusion on causation 
(69) In the absence of any further new and s ubstantiated information or argument, recitals 
(82) to (110) of the provisiona l Regulation are hereby confirmed. 
(70) In the light of the above, the provisiona l finding of existence of causal link between 
the material injury suffered by the Co mmunity industry and the dumped Chinese 
imports is confirmed. 
G. COMMUNITY INTEREST 
1. Developments after the investigation period 
(71) Comments relating to the need to take into consideration certain important post-IP 
developments have been received both from  certain Community industry producers as 
well as from the cooperating exporting produ cers and importers. It is noted that in 
accordance with Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation, information concerning dumping 
and injury relating to a period subsequent to the investigation period shall, normally, 
not be taken into account. However, in view  of the statement made in recitals (119) 
and (129) of the provisional Regulation, it was exceptionally  considered necessary to 
collect data and information related to the period after June 2007 until July 2008.  
(72) Some interested parties claimed that the imposition of measures would be unnecessary 
as the profitability of the Community indus try attained high levels post-IP due to 
significantly increased prices and that the market had regulated itself. During the IP, 
there was evidence of dumping and injury and this injury was caused to a significant degree by the price depression stemming from the dumped imports. Import statistics 
show an average increase of Chinese sales prices of only 12 % af ter the IP. Compared 
to the undercutting level of 16,54% found duri ng the IP, this incr ease is clearly not 
sufficient as it would not al low the Community industry to increase its sales price to a 
sustainable level without risking to lose more customers in the absence of anti-dumping measures. Concerni ng the price level of the Community industry, it was 
found that the Community industry managed to in crease its prices m oderately as of the 
first quarter of 2008 which appeared to have  improved the financia l situation of the 
Community industry. These pr ice increases are, nevert heless, in a close timely 
correlation with the initiation of this proceeding and it thus appears that the situation 
of the Community industry may have impr oved because of the potential anti-dumping 
measures on imports from the PRC. It wa s hence concluded that there was no self-
regulation of the market, or the self-re gulation was insufficient to render the 
imposition of measures unnecessary. The argument should be thus rejected. 
2. Interest of the Community industry 
(73) In the absence of any new and substantia ted information or argument with regard to 
the interest of the Community industry, the conclusion made in recitals (112) to (115) 
 
EN 19   EN of the provisional Regulation regarding the interest of the Community industry are 
hereby confirmed. 
3. Competition and security of supply 
(74) Most interested parties reiterated thei r claim that the imposition of measures would 
significantly reduce competition in the European market and create a duopolistic market situation. It is considered, however, that in view of the strong market position 
that the Chinese exporting producers obtained over the last years, the imposition of 
measures would not drive them out of th e Community market, but merely restore a 
level playing field allowi ng the Community industry and the Chinese exporting 
producers to compete on equal terms. Moreove r, a reasonable price increase on the 
Community market could indeed attract more  imports from other third countries with 
own production, such as Israel and South America which were likely less interested in 
exporting to a market with depressed prices.  
(75) On the other hand, should anti-dumpi ng measures not be imposed, it cannot be 
excluded that the Community industry w ould have to cease its manufacturing 
activities for this particular business, leading to the opposite  scenario, i.e. a dominant 
position of the Chinese imports.  
(76) Most interested parties also claimed that should Chinese imports stop due to the 
imposition of measures the security of supply would be at stake because the 
Community industry cannot satisfy the de mand on the EU market even if both 
producers would produce at 100% of their capacity. This would be aggravated by the fact that the demand of citric acid is pred icted to even increase with the effects of 
Regulation 648/2004 of the European Parlia ment and of the Council on detergents 
("detergent Regulation")
5. In this Regulation, the Comm ission undertakes to conduct a 
review regarding the use of phosphates in detergents and based on the results, to 
submit a proposal for appropriate action. Following this obliga tion, the Commission 
submitted a report, but did not propose any action yet. However, even if phosphates 
would be completely banned from the detergents' industry, their main substitutes are zeolites and to a smaller extent only citric acid.  
(77) Furthermore, several facts contradict  the assumption that Chinese imports would 
indeed stop.  
– Import statistics showed that the Chines e imports increased by 17 % during the 
twelve months following the IP, wher eas after the imposition of provisional 
measures they remained at a substantial level, appearing sufficient to guarantee 
the security of supply in the EU. 
– The investigation showed some overcap acity of some exporting producers in 
China which is an indication that Chin ese imports in the EU market will not 
stop, in particular if the USA would impose measures against PRC, in the 
framework of the US anti-dumping investigation. 
(78) In addition, the Community  industry announced to take ap propriate measures in order 
to increase its production capacity. The complainant announced to increase its 
                                                
 
5 OJ L 104, 8.4.2004, p. 1-35. 
 
EN 20   EN production capacity significantly. According to  the press release is sued in July 2008, 
those additional capacities should be fully available as of mid 2009 with the first 
increase already available in January 2009. Th is should indeed cont ribute to satisfy the 
demand in the EU. It is further noted that the other Community producer announced in August 2008, that it would close its production site in Chin a by the first quarter of 
2009 and that it will focus on its production site in the Community.  
(79) Moreover, a more attractive price level in  the EU market would probably also increase 
imports from third countries and with thos e alternative sources, supply appears to be 
better secured as if users would only depe nd on Chinese citric acid. During the 12 
months following the IP, imports from Is rael for example have increased by 30%. 
(80) It therefore appears that the imposition of measures would not drive the Chinese 
exporting producers out of the market, but w ould rather restore a level playing field 
which secures alternativ e sources of supply.  
3. Interest of unrelated importers 
(81) Some interested partie s claimed that due to sampli ng, the Commission only received 
the results for the largest importers in Europe, thus lacking information of the effects of duties on the overwhelming majority of small and medium sized importers. 
However, no party raised any objection agains t the selected sample and, therefore, the 
sample is considered to be representative for all importers.  
(82) Given that citric acid, on average, constitutes only 1% of the importers' total revenue, 
it is expected that the effects of an anti- dumping duty will be diluted in the companies' 
overall results. 
(83) In the absence of any further comments  from importers, the conclusions made in 
recitals (116) to (120) of  the provisional Regulati on are hereby confirmed. 
4. Interest of users 
(84) After the provisional stage, the Commission intensified the investigation as regards the 
possible impact of measures on users. To this end, additional information was requested from the users and national associations and an additional verification visit was carried out at one Community user's premises.  
(85) The information received confirms  the provisional finding, based on users' 
questionnaire incomplete responses as men tioned in recitals (121) to (122) of the 
provisional Regulation, that the effect of citric acid in th e total cost of production of 
the users is relatively moderate. While the sh are of citric acid in the users' cost of 
production naturally depends on the product, it was found to range generally between 
less than 1% and 20%. The additional information mentioned above has also confirmed the provisional findings that a dut y at the level of the underselling margin 
would have a very limited effect on the co st of production of the cooperating users. 
After the definitive disclosure, two of the ma in industrial users of citric acid argued 
that citric acid represents a high proportion in certain of their products and, thus, the 
effect of the duties would be significant fo r them. Firstly, it should be noted that both 
users produce a wide range of products in wh ich citric acid is used in different 
proportions. Secondly, based on th e data submitted, it could not be proved that those 
 
EN 21   EN users sold predominantly those products in which the cost of citric acid were more 
important. Finally, the argument was not further substantiated by any additional data. Therefore, this argument could not be accepted. 
5. Conclusion on Community interest 
(86) The above additional analysis concerning th e interest of the importers and the users in 
the Community has not altered the provisional conclusions in this respect. Even if in 
certain cases the burden would need to be fully borne by the importer/user, any negative financial impact on the latter would in any event be not significant. On this 
basis, it is considered that the conclusions regarding the Community interest as set out 
in the provisional Regulation are not altere d. In the absence of any other comments, 
they are therefore definitively confirmed.  
H. DEFINITIVE MEASURES 
1. Injury elimination level 
(87) Several interested part ies contested the profit margin  level provisionally used and 
claimed the 9% profit is ex cessive, arguing that the Comm unity industry during the 
period considered never actually achieved th is profit level. It is acknowledged that 
indeed only one Community producer achieved this profit level in the absence of 
dumping, i.e. in 2001, whereas the other di d not. The methodology used to determine 
the injury elimination level was thus re-e xamined and it was deem ed more appropriate 
to use as profit margin the weighted aver age profit margin that was achieved by both 
European producers in 2001, i.e. 6%. 
(88) On the basis of the a bove, it is concluded that the Community industry could 
reasonably expect to achieve a pre-tax profit margin of 6% in the absence of dumped 
imports and this profit margin wa s used in the definitive findings. 
(89) The Chinese import prices were compare d, for the IP, with the non-injurious price of 
the like product sold by the Community industry on the Community market. The non-
injurious price has been obtained by adjusting the sales price of the Community industry in order to reflect the profit margin, as now re vised. The difference resulting 
from this comparison, when expressed as a percentage of the total CIF value, 
amounted to a range from 8,3% to 42,7 % for each company, i.e. less than the dumping margin found, except for one company.  
2. Definitive measures 
(90) In view of the conclusions reached w ith regard to dumping, injury, causation and 
Community interest, and in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, a 
definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed  at the level of the lowest of the 
dumping and injury margins found, in accordan ce with the lesser duty rule. In all but 
one case, the duty rate should accordingly be  set at the level of the injury found.  
(91) On the basis of the above, the definitive duties should be as follows:  
Exporting producer
 Proposed anti-dumping duty  
 
EN 22   EN Anhui BBCA Biochemical Co., Ltd 35,7 % 
DSM Citric Acid (Wuxi) Ltd 8,3 % 
RZBC Co. 36,8 % 
RZBC (Juxian) Co. Ltd. 36,8 % 
TTCA Co., Ltd 42,7 % 
Yixing Union Biochemical 32,6 % 
Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co. Ltd 6,6 % 
Weifang Ensign Industry Co. Ltd 33,8 % 
All other companies 42,7 % 
3. Form of the measures  
(92) During the course of the investigati on, six exporting producers in the PRC offered 
acceptable price undertakings in accordance with  Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation.  
(93) The Commission, by Decision [INSERT]6, accepted these undertaking offers. The 
Council recognises that the undertaking offe rs eliminate the injurious effect of 
dumping and limits to a sufficient degree the risk of  circumvention. 
(94) To further enable the Commission and the customs authorities to effectively monitor 
the compliance of the companies with the undertakings, when the request for release 
for free circulation is presented to the rele vant customs authority, exemption from the 
anti-dumping duty is to be conditional on (i) the presentation of an undertaking 
invoice, which is a commercial invoice contai ning at least the elements listed and the 
declaration stipulated in th e Annex; (ii) the fact that imported goods are manufactured, 
shipped and invoiced directly by the said co mpanies to the first independent customer 
in the Community; and (iii) the fact that th e goods declared and presented to customs 
correspond precisely to the description on the undertaking invoi ce. Where the above 
conditions are not met the appropriate anti- dumping duty shall be incurred at the time 
of acceptance of the declaration fo r release into free circulation. 
(95) Whenever the Commission withdraws, pursuant to Article 8(9) of the basic 
Regulation, its acceptance of an undert aking following a breach by referring to 
particular transactions and declares the relevant undertaking invoices as invalid, a 
customs debt shall be incurred at the time of  acceptance of the declaration for release 
into free circulation of these transactions. 
(96) Importers should be aware that a customs debt may be incurred, as a normal trade risk, 
at the time of acceptance of the declaration for release into free circulation as 
described in recitals [INSERT] and [INSER T] even if an undertaking offered by the 
                                                 
6  
 
EN 23   EN manufacturer from whom they were buying, di rectly or indirectly, had been accepted 
by the Commission. 
(97) Pursuant to Article 14(7 ) of the basic Regulation, cust oms authorities should inform 
the Commission immediately whenever indica tions of a violation of the undertaking 
are found. 
(98) For the reasons stated above, the undertakings offere d by the exporting producers are 
therefore considered acceptable by the Commission and the companies concerned 
have been informed of the essential fact s, considerations and obligations upon which 
acceptance is based. 
(99) In the event of a breach or  withdrawal of the undertakings, or in case of withdrawal of 
acceptance of the undertakings by the Comm ission, the anti-dumping duty which has 
been imposed by the Council in accordance with Article 9(4) shall automatically apply by means of Article 8(9) of the basic Regulation. 
I. DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTY 
(100) In view of the magnitude of the dump ing margin found and gi ven the level of the 
injury caused to the Community industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts 
secured by way of provisional anti- dumping duty imposed by the provisional 
Regulation should be definitively collected to  the extent of the amount of definitive 
duties imposed. As the definitive duty rates are lower than the provisional duty rates, amounts provisionally secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duty 
should be released, 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 
Article 1 
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of citric acid and of 
trisodium citrate dihydrate falling within  CN codes 2918 14 00 and ex 2918 15 00 
(TARIC code 2918 15 00 10) and originati ng in the People's Republic of China. 
2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-
Community-frontier price, before duty, of the products described in paragraph 1 and 
produced by the companies be low shall be as follows: 
Company Anti-
Dumping 
duty (%) TARIC 
Additional 
Code 
Anhui BBCA Biochemical Co., Ltd - N° 73, Daqing Road, 
Bengbu City 233010, Anhui Province, PRC 35,7 A874 
DSM Citric Acid (Wuxi) Ltd - West Side of Jincheng Bridge, 
Wuxi 214024, Jiangsu province, PRC 8,3 A875 
RZBC Co., Ltd - N° 9 Xinghai West Road, Rizhao, Shandong 
Province, PRC 36,8 A876 
 
EN 24   EN RZBC (Juxian) Co. Ltd, West Wi ng, Chenyang North Road, Ju 
County, Rizhao, Shandong Province, PRC  36,8 A877 
TTCA Co., Ltd. – West, Wenhe Bridge North, Anqiu City, 
Shandong Province, PRC 42,7 A878 
Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd – Economic Development 
Zone Yixing City 214203, Jiangsu Province, PRC 32,6 A879 
Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co. Ltd, No. 106 Luzhong Large 
East Street, Laiwu, Shandong Province, PRC 6,6 A880 
Weifang Ensign Industry Co. Lt d, The West End, Limin Road, 
Changle City, Shandong Province, PRC 33,8 A882 
All other companies 42,7  A999 
3. Notwithstanding the first paragraph, the de finitive anti-dumping duty shall not apply 
to imports released for free circul ation in accordance with Article 2. 
4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions  in force concerning customs duties shall 
apply. 
Article 2 
1. Imports declared for releas e into free circulat ion which are invoiced by companies 
from which undertakings are accepted by the Commission and whose names are 
listed in the Commission D ecision [2008/…./EC], as from time to time amended, 
shall be exempt from the anti-dumping duty imposed by Article 1, on condition that: 
– they are manufactured, shipped and invoiced directly by the said companies to 
the first independent custom er in the Community; and 
– such imports are accompanied by an undertaking invoice which is a 
commercial invoice containi ng at least the elements and the declaration 
stipulated in the Annex of this Regulation; and 
– the goods declared and presented to customs correspond precisely to the 
description on the undertaking invoice. 
2. A customs debt shall be incurred at th e time of acceptance of the declaration for 
release into free circulation: 
– whenever it is established, in respect of  imports described in paragraph 1, that 
one or more of the conditions listed in  that paragraph are not fulfilled; or 
 
EN 25   EN – when the Commission withdraws its accep tance of the undertaking pursuant to 
Article 8(9) of the basic Regulation in a Regulation or Decision which refers to 
particular transactions and declares the relevant undertak ing invoices as 
invalid. 
Article 3 
The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty pursua nt to Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 488/2008 on imports of citric  acid originating in the People's Republic of 
China shall be definitively collect ed at the rate of the defini tive duty imposed pursuant to 
Article 1. The amounts secured in excess of the amount of the definitive duty shall be 
released.  
Article 4 
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the 
Official Journal of the European Union . 
This Regulation shall be binding in  its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. 
Done at Brussels, […] 
 For the Council 
 The President  […] 
 
EN 26   EN ANNEX  
The following elements shall be indicated in the commercial invoice accompanying the 
companies' sales to the Community of goods  which are subject to the undertaking: 
1. The heading "COMMERCIAL INVOI CE ACCOMPANYING GOODS SUBJECT 
TO AN UNDERTAKING" 
2. The name of the company issuing the commercial invoice 3. The commercial invoice number 4. The date of issue of the commercial invoice 5. The TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice are to be customs-
cleared at the Community frontier 
6. The exact description of the goods, including: 
– the product code number (PCN) used for the purpose of the undertaking 
– plain language description of the goods  corresponding to the PCN concerned 
– the company product code number (CPC) 
– Taric code 
– quantity (to be given in tonnes) 
7. The description of the te rms of the sale, including: 
– price per tonnes 
– the applicable payment terms 
– the applicable delivery terms 
– total discounts and rebates 
8. Name of the company acting as an importer in the Community to which the 
commercial invoice accompanyi ng goods subject to an undert aking is issued directly 
by the company 
9. The name of the official of the compa ny that has issued the commercial invoice and 
the following signed declaration: 
“I, the undersigned, certify that the sale fo r direct export to th e European Community 
of the goods covered by this invoice is being made within th e scope and under the 
terms of the Undertaking offered by [COMPANY], and accepted by the European Commission through [Decision 2008/XXXX/EC].  I declare that the information 
provided in this invoice is complete and correct.”