COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
C0MC89) 465 final 
Brussels, 25 September 1989 
Proposal for a 
£2yN£Ik-5I§yk£IION-.(§§£2 
accepting undertakings and Imposing a definitive ant I-dumping 
duty on imports of ferro-s!I Icon originating In 
Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Venezuela or Yugoslavia, except 
those sold for export to the Community by 
companies whose undertakings have been accepted 
(presented by the Commission) 
Crikey 
BgLfflftTOKT rflftTTRrWrai 
1. In a notioe published in the Official, Journal of the European 
Communities (No C 145 of 2 «Tune 19Ô8), the Commission announoed a review, 
under Article 15 of Regulation (BBC) No 2423/88, of the current anti­
dumping measures regarding Imports Into the Ctaramunity of f erro-silicon 
originating in Norway. Sweden, Iceland, Yugoslavia and Venezuela. 
2. The Commission's Investigation covered the period from 1 June 1987 to 
31 Way 1988. 
3. The normal value of the dumped product was established: 
- for Norway, Iceland and Yugoslavia, on the basis of a constructed value 
determined by arVltng together production costs and a reasonable profit 
margin. The dumping margin established was around 7.8% for Norway and 
Iceland and between 31.5% and 43.9% for Yugoslavian producers; 
- for Sweden and Venezuela, on the basis of the prices charged on the 
domestic market by the producers concerned. The dumping margin 
established was 4.1% for Sweden and 28.1% for Venezuela. 
4. As regards injury, exports originating In the countries in question have 
risen, while Oommunity production capacity has fallen. Consumption in the 
Community has remained constant. 
Many oases were found in which the selling prices charged for the imports 
were lower than those charged by Oommunity producers; in any event, the 
prices of the said Imports were too low to have covered the Oommunity 
producers' costs and allowed them a reasonable profit. 
- 2 -
Moreover, with regard to the threat of injury, the oountries under scrutiny 
are maintaining very high production capacity and export levels. The 
Community is a neighbouring market with attractive price levels. 
5. In these circumstances, it would seem appropriate to maintain anti­
dumping measures in the form of price undertakings offered by the 
producers/exporters concerned and considered acceptable * 
6. To avoid any loopholes and to prevent the recurrence of the events which 
led to the initiation of this review, an anti-dumping duty should be 
imposed on imports of products sold to the Community by exporters other 
than those referred to at 5. This duty is 4.1% for Sweden, 7.8% for Norway 
and Iceland, 27.1% for Venezuela and 33.2% for Yugoslavia. 
1c 
OCaOL RHOTAnCN (BBC) No /89 
Of 1969 
accepting undertakings and Imposing a definitive ant I-dumping 
duty on imports of ferro-siI Icon originating In 
Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Venezuela or Yugoslavia, except 
those sold for export to the Community by 
companies whose undertakings have been accepted 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN OGMMTINITIES, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Boonomio Community, 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on 
protection against dumped or subsidized Imports from countries not members 
of the European Economic Community,1 and in particular Article 10 thereof, 
After consultation with the Advisory Committee as provided for in the above 
Regulation, 
Whereas: 
A. PRXH3DRE 
1. Commission Decision 83/93/EBC of 1 March 19832 accepted rodertaldngs 
offered in connection with the anti-stamping proceeding concerning 
imports of ferro-si 11 con originating in Iceland, Norway, Sweden, 
Venezuela or Yugoslavia and terminated the proceeding. 
1 0J NO 209, 2.8.1968, p. 1. 
2 OJ NO 57, 4.3.1983, p. 20. 
4i 
- <L 
2. Following the publication in the Official Journal of tha European 
Communities in November 1987 of a notice of expiry of the measures in 
force,3 the Commission was asked in December 1987 by the Comité de 
Liaison des Industries de Ferro-alliages de la Communauté Economique 
Européenne, on behalf of producers representing almost all Community 
production, to review the said measures. The oomplaint contained 
evidence showing that expiry of the measures would result In further 
injury or threat of injury, and this évidence was deemed sufficient to 
Justify the initiation of an Investigation. In a notice published in 
the Official Journal of the European ComnunitiaB,4 the Commission 
accordingly anncnmoed a review of the antidumping measures in force. 
3. Because the Commission failed to announce its Intention to review the 
measure before the expiry of the relevant five-year period, an exporter 
contested the legal basis of the new investigation. 
The Commission notes that Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 2176/84 of 23 July 19645 does not lay down any particular 
formalities for it to announce its intention to review a measure before 
the expiry of the relevant five-year period; on the other hand, 
Article 15(2) lays down that when anti-dumping or countervailing duties 
and undertakings lapse, five years after the date on which they entered 
into force or were last amended, the Commission must publish a notice 
to that effect. 
Since an interested party provided évidence in December 1987 that the 
expiry of the measures would result in further injury, the Commission, 
under Article 15(2) of Regulation (EEC) NO 2176/84, was no longer bound 
to publish a notice announcing the lapse of the measures then in force; 
those measures therefore remained in force pending the outcome of the 
review published in June 1988. 
3 OJ No C 317, 28.11.1967, p. 4. 
4 OJ No C 148, 2.6.1988, p. 4. 
5 OJ NO L 201, 30.7.1984, p. 1. 
- 5 -
Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 did not enter into force until 5 August 
1988, i.e. two months after the publication of the notice of review of 
this proceeding. 
The argument that there is no legal basis is therefore without 
foundation. 
4. The product oonoemed is ferro-silioon containing between 20% and 96% 
of silicon in weight and falling within CN codes 7202 21 10, 7202 21 90 
and 7202 29 00. 
5. The Commission officially advised both the exporters and importers 
xnown to be concerned and the complainants and gave the parties 
concerned an opportunity to make known their views in writing and 
request a hearing. 
6. All exporters and Community producers and some importers have made 
known their views in writing. 
7. Some exporters, importers and consumers of ferro-silioon in the 
Community requested and were granted oral hearings. 
8. Several exporters asked for and were provided with information on the 
principal facts and considérations which would serve as the basis for 
recommending the Imposition of definitive measures. 
9. The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed 
necessary for the purposes of determining dumping, injury and the 
threat of injury and carried out inspections at the premises of: 
- A -
- Community producers: 
Fechiney ELeotrometal 1 urgie France 
Industria ELettrioa Indel Italy 
Carburos Metalicos S.A. Spain 
Uel-Dtilizzazioni ELettro-Industriali Italy 
Off loi ne Elettrcchimiohe Trentine Italy 
— Community importers: 
Euroleghe Italy 
Metallla Italy 
producers/exporters in nonHnember countries: 
Elkem A/S Norway 
BJblvef ossen AS Norway 
Salten Verk Norway 
Ioelandio Alloys Iceland 
Fesll KS Norway 
Flnnfjord Smelteverk Norway 
Haf slund Metal AS Norway 
Ha og Lilleby Smelteverker Norway 
Vargbn Alloys Sweden 
CVCr-Fesilven Venezuela 
Tovarna Dusika Ruse Yugoslavia 
Jugohrom Yugoslavia 
ELektrobosna Yugoslavia 
10. The Commission did not carry out inspections on the premises of the 
following producers in non-member countries: 
Bremanger Smelteverk Norway 
Thamshavn Smelteverk Norway 
The entire production of these two pompantes Is exported by Elkem A/S, 
which in its registered office in Oslo provided the data used by the 
Commission in its calculations. 
_ b -
11. The Commission received and used information from the following 
Importers: 
Elkem Alloys Ltd united Kingdom 
Elkem S.r.l. Italy 
Elkem GnfcH FHS 
Elkem Danemark Denmark 
Elkem France ftranoe 
Intalimet France 
Fesil Metaux France 
Fesil Legierungshandel FRG 
S.A. des Minerals Luxembourg 
Ccopagnie des Mines et Metaux Luxembourg 
12. The Commission received and used Information from the Community 
producer S.K.Trostberg (Federal Republic of Germany). 
13. The Commission's dumping investigation lasted for twelve months, from 
June 1987 to May 1988. 
B. DUMPING 
Norway and Toelanrt 
(a) Normal value. 
14. In no oase did the volume of sales of a like product on the exporter's 
domestio market exceed the threshold of 8% of the volume of exports of 
the product to the Community, set by the Commission in previous oases. 
This meant that normal value had to be oalmlatert by other means. 
_ 6 _ 
15. The Norwegian companies suggested using the prices of exports to third 
countries. The Commission rejected this suggestion sijaoe it could not 
confirm that exports to markets outside the Community were not also 
being dumped. Moreover, the period covered by the investigation saw a 
number of international currency fluctuations, which would have made it 
even more difficult to choose an export market in a third country 
appropriate for calculating normal value. 
16. For those reasons, normal value was constructed on the basis of fixed 
and variable raw material and manufacturing costs for the standard 
product exported to the Community, together with the selling costs, 
administrative expenditure and other general costs. Since two 
Norwegian companies accounted for exports to the Community of almost 
all the ferro-silioon produced in Norway and Iceland during the 
investigation period by several producers linked with one or other of 
the exporters, -Use constructed value was based on weighted average 
costs of materials and manufacture of each group of producers, 
Including general costs, to which were added the operating costs of 
each of the exporters. Allowance was also made for a reasonable profit 
margin of 6%. 
17. Production costs included the cost of ncn-reoonstitutable waste. In 
some oases, where producers failed to produce evidence of such costs, 
their production costs were supplemented by a percentage deemed 
reasonable in the light of all the financial data verified during the 
investigation with other producers which did provide such evidence. 
18. Normal value was reduced by the oost of a by-product of the manufacture 
of ferro-silioon. In view of the large number of producers concerned 
and the wide range of market prices fetched by the by-product, the 
Commission felt it was reasonable to calculate an average production 
oost for the by-product and to deduct it from the production oost of 
the i^fM" product. 
19. In view of the fact that a pertain amount of the ferro-silioon produced 
is of inferior quality, the Commission calculated a percentage of the 
production oost of the main product representing the oost of the 
materials used in the lower quality product, which it then subtracted 
from the overall production oost. 
20. The Commission did not accept the adjustments to production costs 
requested by several companies in respect of financial revenue from 
short-term hank investments and/or transferable securities, since such 
revenue came from financial operations unconnected with the production 
process. Similarly, the Commission did not consider adjustments for 
exchange gains or losses, since these were financial operations 
unconnected with the production process and dearly had no place in a 
calculation of normal value. 
21. The Norwegian exporters contested the Commission's 6% profit margin, 
which they considered excessive in view of their high level of debt, 
enabling them to make a proper return on their capital with a much 
lower yield. They also pointed out that a profit margin of only 3% had 
been applied in the previous investigation. The Commission rejected 
their argument since both exporters had enjoyed an Improvement in 
profitability during the investigation period. 
x 
In these circumstances there were no grounds for considering such a low 
margin as a sufficient return in a high-debt situation. 
(b) Export price, 
22. Export prices were determined on the basis of prices actually paid or 
payable for the products sold for export to the Community. 
Where exports were made to subsidiary companies in the Community, 
export prices were calculated on the basis of the price at which the 
imported product was first sold to an independent purchaser in the 
Community, making suitable allowance for all costs borne between 
Importation and resale of the products concerned in the investigation, 
and for a reasonable profit margin of 3%, calculated on the basis of 
the profit margin of independent importers of the product. 
(c) Ctanparjson, 
23. In comparing normal value with export prices on a transaction-by-
transaction basis, the Commission took account, when appropriate and 
where sufficient evidence was provided, of differences affecting the 
comparability of prices; such adjustments were concerned mainly with 
payment and delivery terms, transport and insurance costs and different 
forms of presentation and packing. 
All comparisons were made at the ex-works stage. 
I 
À. - 9 
(d) romping Bftrglnfl 
24. Comparison of normal value with the export prices for the period from 
June 1987 to May 1988 showed that imports from both Norway and Iceland 
were being dumped, the dumping margin being equal to the difference 
between the normal value and the export price to the Community. 
On the basis of the free-at-Community frontier price, the weighted 
average margins were as follows: 
- for Fesll KS, Oslo (representing the exports of the Norwegian 
producers Hafslund, Finnfjord and lia og Lilleby): 7.79%; 
- for Elkem AS (representing the exports of the Norwegian producers 
Salten Verk, Bjblvefossen, Thamshavn and Bremanger and those of the 
Icelandic producer Ioelandio Alloys): 7.84%. 
(a) NorjaaJ^vjalUo 
25. Normal value was generally calculated by month on the basis of prices 
charged on the domestic market by the producer Vargbn Alloys AB, which 
exported to the Community and which provided satisfactory évidence. 
- 10 
(b) Export prices 
26. Export prices were determined on the basis of prices actually paid, or 
payable for the products sold for export to the Community. 
(c) Comparison 
27. The normal value of the product was compared each month on a 
transactLon-by-transaction basis with the export price of the 
corresponding type of product. The Commission took account, when 
appropriate and where sufficient evidence was provided, of the 
differences referred to in point 23. 
All comparisons were made at the ex-works stage. 
28. Comparison of normal value with the export prices for the period from 
June 1987 to May 1988 showed that Imports from Sweden were being 
dumped, the dumping margin being equal to the difference between the 
normal value and the export price to the Community. 
On the basis of the free-at-Communlty frontier price, the weighted 
average margin for Vargbn Alloys was 4.12%. 
-11-
Venezuela 
(a) N^TTO1 Vftluft 
29. Normal value was generally calculated by month on the basis of prices 
charged to independent customers In normal commercial operations on the 
domestic market by the producer CVG-Fesllven, which exported to the 
Community and which provided satisfactory evidence. 
(b) Export prices 
26. Export prices were determined on the basis of prices actually paid or 
payable for the products sold for export to the Community. 
(o) Comparison 
27. The normal value of the product was compared for the same months on a 
transaotion-by-transaction basis with the export price of the 
corresponding type of product. The Commission took account, when 
appropriate and where sufficient evidence was provided, of the 
differences referred to in point 23. 
All comparisons were made at ttoe ex-works stage. 
-12 -
(d) rUTTflrirg nw.Tgi™a 
32. Comparison of normal value with the export prioes for the period from 
June 1987 to May 1988 showed that Imports from Venezuela were being 
dumped, the dumping margin being equal to the difference between the 
normal value and the export price to the Community. 
On the basis of the free-at^tammunlty frontier price, the weighted 
average margin for CvG-Fesilven was 28.1%. 
Yugoslavia 
(a) Normal value. 
33. Since a product comparable to that sold for export to the Community was 
sold on the domestic market at prioes which In ordinary commercial 
transactions during the reference period could not have covered the 
full cost of production given any reasonable allocation of such costs, 
monthly normal value was determined on the basis of the constructed 
value of the product concerned, Including the fixed and variable raw 
material and manufacturing costs for the standard product exported to 
-13 -
the Community plus sales costs, administrative expenditure and other 
general costs and a reasonable profit margin of 6%. In the case of one 
exporter, who failed to supply information essential to the calculation 
of the constructed value, monthly normal value was determined on the 
basis of information available from other Yugoslavian 
producers/exporters. 
(b) Export prices: 
34. Export prices were determined on the basis of prices actually paid or 
payable for the products sold for export to the Community. 
(o) Comparison 
35. The normal value of the product was compared for the same months on a 
transacrtd.on-by-transaotion basis with the export price of the 
corresponding type of product. The Commission took account, when 
appropriate and where sufficient evidence was provided, of the 
differences referred to in point 23. 
All comparisons were made at the ex-works stage. 
- u -
(d) nimjpiTig ma.Tprr* 
36. Comparison of normal value with the export prices for the period from 
June 1987 to May 1988 showed that Imports from Yugoslavia were being 
dumped, the dumping margin being equal to the difference between the 
normal value and the export price to the Community. 
On the basis of the free-at-Community frontier price, the weighted 
average margin was: 
31.8% for Jugohrcm 
37.1% for ELektrobosna 
43.9% for Tovarna Duslka Ruse 
C. INJUR* 
37. The Commission's task was to determine whether the expiry of the 
measures in force would result in further Injury or threat of injury. 
l. Volume, and price of importa 
38. Exports to the Community originating In the five countries oonoerned 
have risen slightly since the anti-dumping measures entered into force, 
from 250 000 tonnes in 1963 to 289 000 tonnes in 1988. 
-15 -
The aggregate market share of those countries rose from 56% in 1963 to 
50% in 1988. The absolute volume and market share of imports 
originating in each of the exporting countries separately, except for 
Venezuela, also rose slightly. 
39. The Commission also established that while during the reference period 
the resale prices of the Imports in question were Improved by the anti­
dumping measures, many oases were found in which they remained lower 
than the prices charged by Community producers. 
2. Tnflw/rt: nm flnrnmmHty Inringhry 
The Commission took note of the following Information: 
a. Community capacity and production 
40. Between 1983 and 1988 Community production capacity fell from 370 000 
tonnes to 230 000 tonnes; In reducing its capacity, the Community 
industry specialized to some extent in an attempt to limit its losses 
in the face of the downward pressure exerted by non-member countries on 
the price of standard products in the Community. 
-16 _ 
41. Community production remained virtually unchanged, rising from 180 000 
tonnes in 1983 to 184 000 tonnes In 1988. 
b. Market share and consumption 
42. Between 1983 and 1988 the Community Industry's market share stabilized 
around 32%, while consumption rose from 450 000 tonnes in 1983 to 
491 000 tonnes in 1988. The 9% Increase in consumption obviously 
benefited Imports from the countries under investigation. 
c. Prices 
43. In almost all oases, the resale prices charged for dumped Imports 
during the reference period would not have covered the costs of 
Community producers and allowed them a reasonable profit; In an attempt 
to preserve their sales and their market share in the Community, the 
Community producers were forced to sell their products at ever lower 
prices until they could not even cover their costs. 
d. Profits 
44. The financial performance of the Community Industry was negative from 
1985 to 1987. Only in 1988 did a number of companies make a small 
profit. This improvement was modest, despite the upturn In the steel 
industry, which is the main customer for the product concerned, and 
I -17. -
despite restructuring, which allowed better, though not satisfactory, 
capacity utilization. Similarly, the current anti-duimplng measures 
curbed companies' losses at a time when prices were falling. 
45. In order to establish the impact of dumping on the Community industry, 
the Commissi on considered whether or not to examine the cumulative 
impact of imports originating in the countries under investigation. 
It established that the imported products are comparable in terms of 
physical characteristics and price levels and compete both with one 
another and with similar Community products. 
m view of the above, the Commission concluded that all the imports of 
fexTo-silioon involved should be aggregated. The Council confirms this 
conclusion. 
4. Cmiflft ftJYl ftffeot anl othflr fftOtCffl 
46. The simultaneous Increase in imports originating in the five countries 
in question, the increase in their market share, the pressure caused by 
-tô -
the prices of those imports and the worsening situation in the 
Community industry despite the restructuring undertaken by the 
Community producers show that these imports are continuing to cause 
injury to the Community Industry despite the current anti-dumping 
measures. 
47. The Commission examined whether other factors could be behind the 
Injury caused to the Community industry, such as Imports of products 
originating in other non-member countries. 
It established that the market, share of other non-member countries fell 
from 12% in 1983 to 9% in 1988. Moreover, there was no cause to think 
that these imports were being dumped. 
48. The Commission accordingly concluded, on the basis of the above, that 
imports of products from the countries concerned In this proceeding 
were, by themselves, a cause of major Injury to the Community industry 
concerned, in spite of the current antidumping measures. The Council 
confirms this conclusion. 
II. Threat of injury 
49. The exporting countries concerned have some 800 000 tonnes of 
production capacity, a large proportion of the world's total. 
-19 -
Their aggregate production is currently around 700 000 tonnes, while 
their domestic consumption Is about 100 000 tonnes. This gap leaves 
very sizeable quantities available for export. 
Moreover, in view of the development of new production units or the 
enlargement of existing units, particularly in Norway and Venezuela, it 
is realistic to expect an Increase in those two countries' exports to 
the Community, even if, as certain of their exporters have claimed, 
this capacity is Intended to serve the American and Japanese markets. 
In addition, current production oould be stepped up, if so desired, by 
making greater use of the present facilities. 
50. As regards the possibility of these countries adopting a more active 
export policy should the anti-dumping measures expire, it should be 
borne in mind that the Community Is a very attractive market by virtue 
of its price levels; for most of the exporters concerned it Is also a 
neighbouring market. 
51. In these circumstances, the Commission concluded that to abolish the 
anti-dumping measures would lead to further material Injury for 
Community producers. The Council confirms this conclusion. 
-IP.14 '39 12:45 3RUX SDTA3 KI38 FAX 32-2-2357776 P.02 
D. (xmnxnx BEESKBST 
53. The representatives of Community manufacturing Industries and of 
individual oompaniee argued that it would be against the Community's 
interest to keep the protective measures in force, since they were 
weakening campetitivenees against imports of finished products 
originating in non-member countries. 
53. As is the case for any raw material, it is probable ttpt price rises 
influence the costs of the manufacturing industries. However, no 
company provided the Commission with convincing evidence of a specif io 
effect of an increase in the price of ferro-silioon on its production 
costs; nor was evidence supplied of the possible impact of an increase 
in manufacturers1 prices on their total sales. The Commission 
considers that any impact would be slight, particularly in view of the 
low percentage of f erro-eilioon used in the production of a tonne of 
steel. Moreover, having heard the representatives of the manufacturing 
Industry, and In view of the fact that current market prices for ferro-
silioon are vngham than that which, would result from the proposed 
measures (see point 84), the Commission considers that tfrssse i&ôs&ures 
will not contribute to an actual rise in prices. 
Having carefully compared the above arguments and the particularly 
serious problems faced by the Community ferro-silioon industry which 
can be attributed to the imports in question, the Coxcoission concluded 
that it was In the Oxtvounity's interest to maintain measures against 
the dumping of ferro-eiHoon. The Council confirms this conclusion-
-21 -
B. UUDBRCAQHJS 
54. The representatives of the producers/exporters of Norway, Sweden, 
Iceland, Yugoslavia and Venezuela (viz. Elkem A/S, Bjblvefossen AS, 
Salten Verk, Fesil KS, Flnnf jord Smelteverk, Hafslund Metal AS, lia og 
Lilleby Smelteverker, Bremanger Smelteverk and Thamshavn Smelteverk In 
Norway, Ioelandic Alloys in Iceland, Vargbn Alloys in Sweden, CUG-
Fesilven for Venezuela and Tovarna Duslka Ruse, Jugohrom and 
ELektrobosna in Yugoslavia) were Informed of the results of the 
investigation and presented their comments. They then offered 
satisfactory price undertakings to bring the revised prices of ferro-
silioon exports to the Community up to a level considered sufficient to 
eliminate the injury established in the investigation In respect of 
exports originating in Yugoslavia or Venezuela, where the margin of 
injury was lower than the dumping margins established, and to eliminate 
dumping in respect of Imports originating In Norway, Iceland and 
Sweden. v 
In view of the above, and bearing in mind that the circumstances of 
this case justify the application of such measures, the undertakings 
offered by the producers/exporters mentioned above are considered 
acceptable by the Commission and the investigation can accordingly be 
terminated without the imposition of anti-dumping duties on Imports 
from the above-mentioned producers/exporters originating in the five 
countries concerned. The ConseJ| conf|rms tM8 conclusion. 
- 'd'd -
F. DUTIES 
55. In order not to leave any loopholes and to prevent a recurrence of the 
events which led to the initiation of this review, an anti-dumping duty 
should be Imposed on imports of products sold to the Community by 
exporters other than those referred to at 5; this duty would apply to 
all imports of the products concerned originating in Iceland, Norway, 
Sweden, Venezuela or Yugoslavia sold for export to the Community by 
companies other than those whose price undertakings have been accepted. 
TO facilitate customs clearance the Commission considers that the duty 
should take the form of an ad valorem anti-dumping duty. The Council 
confirms this conclusion. 
56. The rates of duty to be Imposed in respect of the countries concerned 
have been déterminai for Norway, Sweden and Iceland on the basis of the 
Highest dumping margin established, because for these three countries 
the dumping margin.was.Less than the injury threshold, *nri for Yugoslavia 
arid Venezuela on the basis of the highest established injury caused by 
imports originating in those countries as for these countries the injury 
threshold was less than the dumping margin. The injury threshold was 
calculated on the basis of the most efficient Community producers plus 
a reasonable profit margin of 6%. In no case do these amounts exceed 
the established dumping margins. 
-2i -
Expressed as a percentage of the net free-at-Ooramunity-frentier price 
of the product before duty, the raises of duty are: 
- Sweden 4.1% 
- Norway 7.8% 
- Iceland 7.8% 
- Venezuela 27.1% 
- Yugoslavia 33.2%,, 
HAS ADOPTED TELS RBOTATICN: 
Article 1 
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of ferro-
silioon falling within CN codes 7202 21 10, 7202 21 90 and 7202 29 00 
and originating in Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Yugoslavia or Venezuela. 
2. The duty, expressed as a percentage of the net free^tK3ommunity-
frontler price of the product before duty, shall be: 
Sweden 4.1% 
Norway 7.8% 
Iceland 7.8% 
Venezuela 27.1% 
Yugoslavia 33.2% 
24 -
Fiee-at-Community-fixmtier prices shall be net if the conditions of 
sale provide for payment within thirty days of consignment. They shell 
be Increased or reduced by 1% for each month's Increase or decrease in 
the period of payment. 
3. The duty shall not apply to the products referred to in paragraph 1 
produced and/or exported direct to the Community by: 
ELkem A/S Norway 
Bjdlvefossen AS Norway 
Sal ten Verk Norway 
Icelandic Alloys Iceland 
Fesil KS Norway 
Finnfjord Sraelteverk Norway 
Haf slund Metal AS Norway 
Thamshavn Smelteverk Norway 
Ila og Lilleby Smelteverker Norway 
Bremanger Smelteverk Norway 
Vargbn Alloys Sweden 
Cvrjr-Fesilven Venezuela 
Tovarna Duslka Ruse Yugoslavia 
Jugohrom Yugoslavia 
ELektrobosna Yugoslavia 
whose price undertakings are acoepted m 
4. The Investigation In connection with the ant I-dumpings proceeding 
referred to In article 1 (3) is hereby terminated. 
5. The provisions In force concerning customs duties shall apply. 
-25 -
Article i 
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 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(89) 465 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 11 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-89-421-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-53147-9 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
b-2985 Luxembourg