PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) ACCEPTING UNDERTAKINGS AND IMPOSING A DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY ON IMPORTS OF FERRO-SILICON ORIGINATING IN ICELAND, NORWAY, SWEDEN, VENEZUELA OR YUGOSLAVIA, EXCEPT THOSE SOLD FOR EXPORT TO THE COMMUNITY BY COMPANIES WHOSE UNDERTAKINGS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED
Date: 1989-09-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: dumping, import, third country

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 

Industria ELettrioa Indel 

Carburos Metalicos S.A. 

France 

Italy 

Spain 

Uel-Dtilizzazioni  ELettro-Industriali 

Italy 

Off loi ne Elettrcchimiohe Trentine 

Italy 

— Community importers: 

Euroleghe 
Metallla 

Italy 
Italy 

producers/exporters in nonHnember countries: 

Elkem A/S 
BJblvef ossen AS 
Salten Verk 
Ioelandio Alloys 
Fesll KS 
Flnnfjord Smelteverk 
Haf slund Metal AS 

Ha  og Lilleby Smelteverker 
Vargbn Alloys 
CVCr-Fesilven 
Tovarna Dusika Ruse 
Jugohrom 
ELektrobosna 

Norway 
Norway 
Norway 
Iceland 
Norway 
Norway 
Norway 

Norway 
Sweden 
Venezuela 
Yugoslavia 
Yugoslavia 
Yugoslavia 

10. The Commission did not carry out inspections on the premises of the 

following producers in non-member countries: 

Bremanger Smelteverk 
Thamshavn Smelteverk 

Norway 
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 
Elkem S.r.l. 
Elkem GnfcH 
Elkem Danemark 
Elkem France 
Intalimet 
Fesil Metaux 
Fesil Legierungshandel 
S.A. des Minerals 
Ccopagnie des Mines et Metaux 

united Kingdom 
Italy 
FHS 
Denmark 
ftranoe 
France 
France 

FRG 

Luxembourg 
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. 

-  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. 

I 

À. 

-  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%. 

- 1 1-

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. 

(d) nimjpiTig  ma.Tprr* 

- u -

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  I n r i n g h ry 

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 

-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 

I 

-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.  U U D B R C A Q H JS 

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 
v 
Sweden. 

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.  T he C o n s e J| c o n f | r ms t M8  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 

-  Norway 
-  Iceland 
-  Venezuela 
-  Yugoslavia 

4.1% 

7.8% 
7.8% 
27.1% 
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 
Norway 
Iceland 
Venezuela 
Yugoslavia 

4.1% 
7.8% 
7.8% 
27.1% 
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 
the period of payment. 

in 

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 
Bjdlvefossen AS 
Sal ten Verk 
Icelandic Alloys 
Fesil KS 
Finnfjord Sraelteverk 
Haf slund Metal AS 
Thamshavn Smelteverk 
Ila og Lilleby Smelteverker 
Bremanger Smelteverk 
Vargbn Alloys 
Cvrjr-Fesilven 
Tovarna Duslka Ruse 
Jugohrom 
ELektrobosna 

Norway 
Norway 
Norway 
Iceland 
Norway 
Norway 
Norway 
Norway 
Norway 
Norway 
Sweden 
Venezuela 
Yugoslavia 
Yugoslavia 
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