Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) IMPOSING DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON IMPORTS INTO THE COMMUNITY OF ETHANOLAMINE ORIGINATING IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND COLLECTING DEFINITIVELY THE PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES
Date: 1994-01-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: United States, anti-dumping duty, import, organic chemical

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

COM(94) 13  final 

Brussels, 21.01.1994 

Proposal  for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION  (EC) 

S S f s s S * ^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 : 

| 
,f' 
i ; 
(v 
11 
\ 

a)  in the case of MEA, CN code 29 22 11 00 

(Taric code 29 22 11 00 10) 
b)  in the case of DBA, CN code 29 22 12 00 

(Taric code 29 22 12 00 10) 

: 

: 
: 
: 

606 ECU 

584 ECU 

c)  in the case of TEA, CN code 29 22 13 00 
- with a content of less than 99% 
(Taric code 29 22 13 00 11) 
- with a content of 99% or more 
(Taric code 29 22 13 00 91) 

: 

609 ECU 

: 

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