tJJIf"'*" " I 
pfeL " • >- r 
Iff 4 r ^ ^ ^ COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
C0M(91) 437 final 
Brussels, 5 November 1991 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) 
jjj*^ Imposing a definitive ant I-dumping duty on Imports 
of oxalic acid originating In India or China 
(presented by the Commission) 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
Procedure 
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1472/91 of 29 May 19911 Imposed 
provisional ant I-dumping duties of 6.5% on imports of oxalic acid 
originating in India and of 20.3% on those originating in China. 
The duties were extended for a period not exceeding two months by 
Council Regulation 2833/91.2 
I I. Qumolng 
The arguments put forward by the producers/exporters concerned were 
not considered to provide sufficient grounds for a change In the 
method used to make a provisional assessment of dumping margins. The 
provisional figures are therefore confirmed. 
The Indian producers/exporters claimed that normal value should have 
been calculated on the basis of a weighted monthly average. The 
Commission decided to allow this request, and the dumping margin was 
reduced to 4,4% for Punjab Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Excel 
Industries Ltd. 
ni. inlury 
The Commission also confirms Its provisional findings with regard to 
Injury. 
IV. Definitive measures 
The Commission concludes that imports of oxalic acid originating in 
India should carry an ad valorem anti-dumping duty of 4.4% and those 
originating In China an ad valorem duty of 20.3%. 
1 0J L 138, 1.6.1991, p.62. 
2 0J L 272, 28.9.1991, p.2. 
-2-
The Commission is therefore submitting to the Council a proposal for a 
CounclI Régulât Ion: 
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on Imports of oxalic acid 
originating in India; 
Imposing a definitive ant I-dumping duty on imports of oxalic acid 
originating in the People's Republic of China; 
- making definitive the collection of the amounts secured by the 
provisional ant I-dumping duty (up to the percentages Indicated in 
the Regulation imposing the definitive ant I-dumping duty). 
Proposal for a 
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No ... 
Of ... 
Imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on Imports 
of oxalic acid originating In India or China 
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on 
protection against dumped or subsidized imports originating in countries 
not members of the European Economic Community,1 and in particular Article 
12 thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after 
consultations within the Advisory Committee as provided for by the above 
Régulât Ion, 
Whereas: 
A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES 
(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1472/912 imposed a provisional anti­
dumping duty on Imports Into the Community of oxalic acid falling 
within CN code ex 2917 11 00 originating in India or China. 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2833/913 extended that duty for a period 
not exceeding two months. 
1 0J L 209, 2.8.1988, p.1. 
2 0J L 138, 1.6.1991, p.62. 
3 0J L 272, 28.9.1991, p.2. 
-2-
B. CONTINUATION OF PROCEEDING 
(2) Following Imposition of the provisional duty, the parties which had so 
requested were granted a hearing by the Commission. They also made 
their views on the provisional findings known in writing. The 
Commission examined their oral and written comments. 
(3) At their request, the parties were informed of the essential facts and 
considerations on the basis of which It was intended to recommend the 
imposition of definitive duties and the definitive collection of 
provisional duty. They were allotted a period in which to make 
comments. Some made use of this opportunity. 
C. PRODUCT CONSIDERED; LIKE PRODUCTS 
(4) In the absence of new arguments concerning the product considered and 
Its similarity to the Community product, the Council confirms the 
findings put forward by the Commission in recitals 10 and 11 of 
Regulation (EEC) No 1472/91. 
D. DUMPING 
(5) (a) Normal value 
For the purposes of the definitive findings, normal value was 
established using the same methods used In the provisional calculation 
of dumping margins, taking account of new facts and arguments put 
forward by the parties. 
-3-
(6) The Indian exporters claimed that normal value should have been 
established on the basis of a monthly weighted average Instead of a 
weighted average for the entire period of the Investigation. In this 
instance, the Commission considers that a monthly weighted average 
could Indeed be used. 
(7) In the light of these considerations, the Commission will calculate 
normal value for oxalic acid from India on the basis of a weighted 
monthly average and confirms the calculation of normal value for 
oxalic acid from China contained in recital 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 
1472/91. 
The Council confirms these findings. 
(b) Export price 
(8) The Chinese exporters wished the export prices provisionally 
calculated on the basis of available facts, as stipulated in Article 
7(7)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, to be determined using 
Eurostat statistics rather than the figures contained In the 
complaint. 
The Commission takes the view that In this case the figures contained 
In the complaint, which come from traders whose information has been 
confirmed by an importer which cooperated in the investigation, are 
more suitable than Eurostat statistics. The Commission observed that 
Eurostat Import figures for the product were not In fact correct. 
(9) With regard to imports of oxalic acid from China, therefore, and in 
the absence of comments on the matter from Indian exporters, the 
Council confirms the findings put forward by the Commission In 
recitals 14 and 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 1472/91. 
-4-
(c) Comparison 
(10) In the absence of new arguments from the Interested parties, the 
Council confirms the findings put forward by the Commission In recital 
16 of Regulation (EEC) No 1472/91. 
(d) Dumping margins 
(11) 1. India 
On the basis of the new normal value, the definitive dumping margin is 
4,4% for Punjab Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Excel 
Industrles Ltd. 
2. China 
The Council confirms the observations and findings put forward by the 
Commission In recital 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 1472/91. 
E. INJURY 
(12) In Its preliminary findings, the Commission considered that the 
Community firm in question had suffered substantial Injury. The main 
grounds for this belief were the rapid increase in exports, 
undercutting by the exporters concerned on the Community market and 
the consequent decrease in selling prices for the Community 
complainant. 
(a) Volume, market share and export price 
(13) With regard to export volume, the Indian exporters requested that 
calculations be made on the basis not of the accounting data received 
by the Commission in the replies to Its questions (data verified by 
its Investigators), but on lower Eurostat figures. This was on the 
grounds that re-export from the Community to third countries might 
have taken place. The Commission rejected this request, considering 
that It had no Information confirming this reasoning and that the 
Indian exporters had failed to offer even minimal proof of such 
occurrences. 
-5-
(14) The Indian and Chinese exporters also challenged the Commission's 
provisional findings with regard to market share. However, since 
their figures were based on Inaccurate statistics for Community 
consumption (sales figures for all Community producers and figures for 
imports of Indian origin), the Commission confirmed the observations 
It had put forward in recitals 19 and 20 of Regulation (EEC) No 
1472/91. 
In the absence of other considerations, the Council confirms the 
findings put forward by the Commission In recitals 19 to 22 of 
Regulation (EEC) No 1472/91. 
(b) Cumulative effect 
(15) The Indian exporters claimed that taking an aggregate of Chinese and 
Indian exports of oxalic acid to the Community was inappropriate in 
that the economic structures, tax systems, raw materials subsidies and 
manufacturing procedures of the two countries were different. 
(16) The Chinese exporters, meanwhlle, challenged aggregation of Chinese 
and Indian exports on the grounds that they had followed a different 
sales strategy from the Indian exporters, bringing down their exports 
during the first eight months of 1990. 
(17) The Commission took the view that the Indian exporters' arguments were 
not strictly relevant to the considérât ions governing aggregation of 
exports from third countries. It rejected the Chinese exporters' 
arguments on the grounds that their conduct was comparable to that of 
the Indian exporters for the Investigation period as a whole, although 
it had differed to a degree for a few months. 
-6-
The Commission therefore upholds the validity of the reasoning put 
forward In recital 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1472/91. 
In the light of these considerations, the Council confirms the 
findings put forward by the Commission In recitals 23 and 24 of 
Regulation (EEC) No 1472/91. 
(c) The state of the Community Industry; conclusions concerning injury 
(18) in the absence of new arguments from the Interested parties, the 
Council confirms the observations and findings put forward by the 
Commission In recitals 25 to 34 of Regulation (EEC) No 1472/91. 
F. LINK BETWEEN DUMPING AND INJURY 
(19) The Indian exporters disputed that their exports of oxalic acid to the 
Community might have caused injury to the Community producer 
concerned, arguing that their share of the market was negligible and 
that the Community complainant's difficulties were caused by errors of 
management such as an Increase in production capacity and ill-
considered Investment within the existing company and in the 
establishment of a new company. 
«. 
(20) The Chinese exporters also disputed causing Injury, adding to the 
claim referred to above the argument that the Community complainant's 
difficulties were caused mainly by the activity of other Community 
producers. 
-7-
(21) The Commission pointed out that India's market share was 9.4%, and 
therefore not negligible. It said that the Investment which had been 
criticised and the increase in production capacity had occurred at a 
time when Community consumption had risen substantially. 
The Commission stressed that the new company's production capacity had 
not been considered during the assessment of Injury, as It had not 
begun production during the period of Investigation. 
(22) With regard to other Community producers, the fact that the production 
of oxalic acid was only a marginal activity for them, the fact that 
one of the producers sold most of its output to the other and the fact 
that the prices they charged on the Community market were 
significantly higher than those of the complainant Community firm led 
the Commission to conclude that these firms' activities had not caused 
Injury to the complainant. 
(23) The Council therefore confirms the findings put forward by the 
Commission In recitals 35 to 41 of Regulation (EEC) No 1472/91. 
G. COMMUNITY INTEREST 
(24) The Indian exporters claimed that the risk In Imposing anti-dumping 
measures on their exports of oxalic acid was that the Community firm 
would acquire a monopoly, given that ant I-dumping measures were 
already applied to other countries. 
-8-
Thls argument seems to have little foundation considering the 
complainant's share of the Community market, the presence of other 
Community producers and the market penetration In the Community of 
imports from third countries. 
(25) In the light of these considerations, the Council confirms the 
findings put forward by the Commission in recitals 42 to 44 of 
Regulation (EEC) No 1472/91. 
H. DUTY 
(26) The Council confirms the provisional measures (ad valorem ant I-dumping 
duties corresponding to the dumping margins calculated) set out in 
recitals 45 to 47 of Regulation (EEC) No 1472/91. 
I. UNDERTAKING 
(27) The Indian producers/exporters offered a price undertaking. After 
consultation this undertaking was not considered acceptable by the 
Commission. The Commission notified the producers/exporters of the 
reasons for this decision. 
J. COLLECTION OF PROVISIONAL DUTIES 
(28) In the light of the dumping margins calculated for imports of oxalic 
acid originating In India and China and the degree of injury caused to 
the Community firm In question, the Council considers it necessary 
that the provisional ant I-dumping duty received be definitively 
collected at a rate corresponding to the definitive duty imposed. 
-9-
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 
Article 1 
1. A definitive ant I-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of oxalic 
acid falling within code ex 2917 11 00 of the Combined Nomenclature 
and TARIC code 2917 11 00 * 10, originating In India or China. 
2. The amount of the duty, based on the free-at-Community-front 1er price, 
not cleared through customs, shall be: 
- 4.4% for imports of oxalic acid originating in India, and 
- 20.3% for imports of oxalic acid originating in China. 
3. The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply. 
Article 2 
The amounts secured by way of provisional ant I-dumping duty Imposed by 
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1472/91 shall be collected at the rate 
corresponding to the definitive duty. 
Article 3 
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following Its publication 
In the Official Journal of the European Communities. 
-10-
Thls Regulation shall be binding In its entirety and directly applicable in 
a 11 Member States. 
Done at Brussels, 
For the CounclI 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(91) 437 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 02 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-91-487-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-77148-8 
Office for Official Publications of the European (immunities 
L-2985 Luxembourg