COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
COM(94) 13 final 
Brussels, 21.01.1994 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) 
SSfssS*^1^ IMPOSING DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DOTIBS ON IMPORTS 
INTO THE COMMUNITY OP ETHANOLAMINE ORIGINATING IN THE UNITED STATES OP 
AMERICA, AND COLLECTING DEFINITIVELY THE PROVISIONAL 
ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES 
(presented by the Commission) 
fins 
mm 
fg^l)^--:^i,-i-;--yi 
ffifc 
m 
WB-:;W'5'4 
">. -«- *B» ^0 «re %-i* 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
1. By Commission Regulation (EEC) N° 2172/93, whose applicability was 
extended by Council Regulation (EC) N° 3344/93, provisional anti­
dumping duties were imposed on imports of ethanolamine originating 
in the United States of America. 
2. Subsequent submissions and information provided by interested 
parties confirmed largely the findings of the Commission, as stated 
in the recitals of Regulation (EEC) N° 2172/93. 
3. The definitive anti-dumping measures proposed in the present draft 
Regulation are therefore substantially the same as the provisional 
measures. 
DRAFT COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) N° OF 1993 
IMPOSING DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON IMPORTS 
INTO THE COMMUNITY OP ETHANOLAMINE ORIGINATING IN THE UNITED STATES CF 
AMERICA, AND COLLECTING DEFINITIVELY THE PROVISIONAL 
ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES 
THE COUNCIL OP THE EUROPEAN UNION 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 
Having regard to the Council Regulation (EEC) N° 2423/88 of 11 July 
1988 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries 
not members of the European Communityd> (hereinafter referred to as 
the "basic Regulation"), and in particular Article 12 thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal presented by the Commission after 
consultation within the Advisory Committee as provided for by the above 
Regulation, 
Whereas : 
A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES 
(1) By Regulation (EEC) N° 2172/93<2J (hereafter referred to as the 
"provisional duty Regulation"), the Commission imposed provisional 
anti-dumping duties on imports into the Community of ethanolamines 
originating in the United States of America (hereinafter referred 
to as "the USA) falling under CN codes 29 22 11 00, 29 22 12 00 and 
29 22 13 00. 
(1) O.J. L 209 of 2.8.1988, p. 1 
(2) O.J. L 195 Of 4.8.1993, p. 5 
B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURES 
(2) Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duties, 
the producers in the USA, and their related importers in the 
Community submitted comments in writing, and asked for an extension 
of the duration of the provisional duty Regulation, in order to 
establish in particular the effects of the provisional measures on 
the level of prices and imports. The extension was granted by 
Council Regulation (EC) N°3344/93<3>. 
Also a number of end-users of ethanolamine made certain allegations 
to the Commission concerning the effects of the provisional duty 
Regulation on their businesses. 
Parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard by 
the Commission. 
(3) The producers in the USA, their related importers in the Community 
and the Community producers were informed of the essential facts 
and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to 
recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties and the 
definitive collection of amounts secured by way of provisional 
duty. They were also granted a period within which to make 
representations subsequent to the disclosure. 
(4) The parties' comments were considered, and the Commission altered 
its conclusions where justified. 
C. PRODUCT UNDER INVESTIGATION 
(5) In its provisional duty Regulation (recital 7) a description of the 
product, i.e. ethanolamine, was given. 
One end-user claimed that the several types of ethanolamine should 
not be considered as like products because the different types show 
a different reaction to market forces. However, the further 
information brought forward by this party confirmed the findings 
of the Commission with regard to similarity in production process 
and interchangeability of end-use of the different types of 
-*-
(3) O.J. L 299 of 4.12.1993, p.43 
ethanolamine, on which, inter alia, the Commission had founded its 
conclusion of like product for the different types concerned. 
(6) Since the CN codes referred to above also contained the salts made 
from ethanolamine which axe however not covered by the complaint 
and the proceeding, the Regulation establishing definitive duties 
and collecting the provisional duties, should exclude these salts 
from the scope of this Regulation. 
The Commission has accordingly adjusted the description of the 
product In Articles 1 and 2 below. 
The Council confirms the findings of the Commission with regard to 
the like product definition and the adjustment of the description 
of the product for customs purposes. 
D. DUMPING 
Normal value, export price, comparison and dumping margins 
(7) No comments were received on the determination of the normal velue, 
export price, comparison and dumping margins as described in 
recitals (8), (9), (10) and (11) of the provisional duty 
Regulation. 
B. INJURY 
(8) With regard to price undercutting, one USA producer and Its 
related Importer, questioned the validity of the Commission 
findings on price undercutting. The companies were however not 
able to support their claims by evidence not already taken Into 
account by the Commission. There was, therefore, considered to 
be no reason to change the price undercutting calculations as 
given in the provisional duty Regulation. 
(9) The same companies repeated their claim that the Commission 
should have come to the conclusion of "no injury" because, 
during the period from 1988 until the end of the investigation 
period,three Community producers had imported from that USA 
company a total of 4587 tonnes and should therefore be excluded 
from the injury analysis. The remaining Community producer 
5 
allegedly represented only 16% of the Community production 
capacity, and could therefore not constitute "a major 
proportion" of Community ethanolamine producers. The companies 
furthermore claimed that the Community producers concerned had 
obtained significant benefits from the importation of 
ethanolamines from the USA. 
The Commission requested the companies mentioned to support 
their allegations by reference to the timing and the prices at 
which the imports by the indicated Community producers took 
place. No details have been given, however, other than further 
allegations that the imports from the USA were made at a time 
when the Community producers had insufficient capacity to meet 
demand from ethanolamine users in the EC, and that the imports 
enabled the Community producers to derive substantial profits 
in the market for other products that, like ethanolamine, are 
also derivatives of ethyleneoxide. 
In the absence of the requested information, the Commission 
considered that the demand for exclusion of the Community 
producers concerned should be rejected since, even if the 
allegations were confirmed, the tonnage involved would 
represent, over the five year period in question, no more than 
1.2% of the sales of the EC producers concerned, and no more 
than 2% of the total imports from the USA. 
The Council confirms this approach. 
F. CAUSATION 
(10) The Commission's conclusions on causality, laid down in 
recitals (25) to (30) of the provisional duty Regulation were 
not contested by any party, and are therefore confirmed by the 
Council. 
G. COMMUNITY INTEREST 
(11) Recitals (31) to (34) of the provisional duty Regulation dealt 
with the considerations of the Commission with respect to the 
Community interest involved. These have not met with subsequent 
objections from any party. 
.4. 
(12)The end-users which supplied the Commission with information on the 
price rises by the Community producers, also pointed out the 
effects of these price rises on their cost of production and on 
their competitive position on the Community market. 
The Commission has asked those end-users to indicate more precisely 
the effects on the costs of production of the provisional measures 
and additionally the benefits they drew from the dumped imports. 
No additional information has, however, been provided by those end-
users. 
The Commission therefore maintains its position that, since the 
provisional measures do not increase the prices of ethanolamine 
above the average price of the last 5 years, the effect of the 
provisional measures on the cost of production of the end products 
was limited. The imposition of definitive measures is further 
justified in view of the price rises in the longer run that would 
occur in their absence as indicated in recital (32) of the 
provisional duty Regulation. 
Since all intermediate users of ethanolamine are confronted with 
the same effects of the provisional measures, these measures do not 
affect the competitive position of these users. 
The Council confirms these conclusions of the Commission. 
H. LEVEL OP MINIMUM IMPORT PRICE 
(13)USA exporters and their related importers expressed doubts, 
however, about the preparedness of the Community industry to raise 
its prices to a level necessary to enable it to cover its costs and 
to obtain a reasonable return on sales. They feared that the 
Community industry would undercut the prices of the USA suppliers 
in order to increase its market share. In this way, the effect of 
the minimum-import price would be a limitation of competition on 
the market, which would not be in the interest of the Community. 
One of these interested parties referred to the actual decrease of 
exports directly after the entering into force of the provisional 
measures as proof of the probability of price undercutting by the 
Community producers. 
ï 
During the extended period of validity of the provisional duty 
Regulation, no further information was submitted by any USA 
producers or related importer confirming the alleged development. 
The Commission, however, received information from a number of end-
users pointing to an increase in the Community producers' prices 
and at their lack of capacity to fulfill competely the demand on 
the Community market. 
The Commission therefore recalls its conclusions, as stated in 
recitals 33 and 35 of the provisional duty Regulation, and in 
particular that, while the chosen level of minimum import prices 
would enable the Community industry to cover its costs and to 
obtain a reasonable return on sales, its lack of capacity would 
also enable third country producers to continue to supply the EC 
market. Under such competitive conditions, the Community industry 
would not be able to achieve oligopolistic profitability. 
In view of this situation, there is no reason for the Commission to 
change its approach for establishing the level of the minimum 
import prices. 
(14)One USA exporter and its related Importer submitted a cost 
calculation for the most efficient Community producer, attempting 
to show that the level of the minimum import price was higher than 
that necessary for the Community industry to cover its costs and 
obtain a reasonable return on sales, and would therefore not be in 
the interest of the end-users of ethanolamine. 
The Commission compared this cost calculation with its own findings 
during the investigation, and has come to the conclusion that the 
assumptions in the calculation of the USA company were not fully in 
conformity with the real situation with which the Community 
industry was confronted during the investigation period. 
Additional information gathered by the Commission in respect of the 
present costs in the Community does not show a significant 
difference between the present costs and the costs during the 
investigation period. 
Another USA exporter and its related importer claimed that the 8% 
profit level used by the Commission was totally unrealistic and did 
Î-
not take account of the nature of the market. 
The Commission had, however, based this figure on the information 
obtained during the investigation from all parties, and, in 
particular on that from the USA producers. 
The Commission therefore finds no reason to change the level cf the 
minimum import price. 
The Council confirms this conclusion. 
I. NATURE OP THE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 
(15)The reasoning of the Commission as regards the type of the 
provisional anti-dumping measures, as laid down in recitals (35) to 
(38) has not been contested by any party. The Commission therefore 
maintains the same reasoning as far as the definitive measures are 
concerned. 
The Council confirms this approach. 
J. COLLECTION OP PROVISIONAL DUTIES 
(16)With respect to provisional duties, it is Community practice to 
collect these duties definitively if substantial injurious dumping 
provisionally determined is confirmed at the definitive stage and 
if the situation with respect to the injurious effect of the dumped 
imports to the Community market has not fundamentally changed since 
the imposition of the provisional duties. 
In the present case, substantial injurious dumping was definitively 
confirmed. It was therefore considered that these duties should be 
collected in full. 
Imports of ethanolamine salts should however be exempted from this 
collection. 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION : 
Article 1 
A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of 
ethanolamine, with the exclusion of salt of ethanolamine, falling 
- f-
within CN codes ex 29 22 11 00, ex 29 22 12 00 and ex 29 22 13 00, 
originating in the United States of America. 
2. The amount of duty shall be the difference between the CIF price 
Community frontier per tonne, exclusive of duty, when lower, and 
the following levels : 
a) in the case of MEA, CN code 29 22 11 00 : 
(Taric code 29 22 11 00 10) : 606 ECU 
| b) in the case of DBA, CN code 29 22 12 00 : 
,f' (Taric code 29 22 12 00 10) : 584 ECU 
i ; 
(v c) in the case of TEA, CN code 29 22 13 00 
11 - with a content of less than 99% 
\ (Taric code 29 22 13 00 11) : 609 ECU 
- with a content of 99% or more 
(Taric code 29 22 13 00 91) : 652 ECU 
3. The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply. 
Article 2 
a) The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty 
pursuant to Regulation (EEC) n° 2172/93 shall be definitively 
collected. 
b) The amounts so secured in the case of imports of salts of 
ethanolamine shall be released. 
Article 3 
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its 
publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. 
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly 
applicable in all Member States. 
Done at Brussels, 
For the Council 
-M> 
ISSNC254-;4' 
COM(94) 13 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN il 02 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-94-014-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-64494-X 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
JLr2985 Luxembourg