Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) IMPOSING A DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY ON IMPORTS OF UREA AMMONIUM NITRATE SOLUTION ORIGINATING IN BULGARIA AND POLAND, EXPORTED BY COMPANIES NOT EXEMPTED FROM THE DUTY, AND COLLECTING DEFINITIVELY THE PROVISIONAL DUTY IMPOSED
Date: 1994-12-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Bulgaria, Poland, anti-dumping duty, chemical salt, dumping, import

COMMISSION OF  THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

COM(94) 656 final 
Brussels, 12.12.1994 

Proposal  for a 

IMPOSING A  DEFINITIVE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ON IMPORTS OF 

UREA AMMONIUM NITRATE SOLUTION ORIGINATING  IN 

BULGARIA  AND POLAND, EXPORTED BY COMPANIES  NOT 

EXEMPTED  FROM THE DUTY, AND COLLECTING  DEFINITIVELY 

THE PROVISIONAL  DUTY IMPOSED 

(presented by the Commission) 

1  o-

EXPLANATORY  MEMORANDUM 

(1.) 

By Regulation (EC)  1506/94 (1> the Commission imposed a provisional anti 

dumping duty on imports into the Community of urea-ammonium-nitrate 

solution ("UAN") originating in Bulgaria and Poland, which was extended by 

Regulation (EC) No 2620/94 (2) until 31 December  1994. 

(2.) 

Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty, the  Bulgarian 

and Polish exporters and producers, an importers association and the 

complainants submitted comments in writing on the basis of which the 

Commission, where appropriate modified its final determinations.  Comments 

made by the Bulgarian parties and the importers association relate to the 

injury and causality, those by the Polish producers to the determination of 

normal value and the export price and those of the complainants to the 

calculation of the injury threshold. 

(3.) 

Taking  into account the submissions made, the dumping margin for 

Bulgarian imports was determined at a levé! of 33.3% , for the  Polish 

producers the margins determined were between 27 and 40%. 

(4.)  As far as the injury situation is concerned, the provisional  determinations 

were confirmed, i.e. that low priced increasing volumes of the  imports 

concerned caused injury in the form of financial losses to the  Community 

industry. Given that it was also concluded that it was in the interest of the 

Community to remedy the injurious situation, the Commission  has 

determined that anti-dumping  measures should be imposed. 

(1) 

(2) 

O J N ° L 1 6 2,  30.06.1994, p. 16 

OJ N° L 280, 29.10.1994, p.1 

2 ^-

(5.)  After disclosure the Bulgarian and Polish exporters and producers  have 

offered  undertakings. Whereas the Commission considered the offer of the 

undertaking  by the Bulgarian parties acceptable as the undertaking  ensured 

the removal of injury, the offer of the undertaking  by the Polish parties was 

not considered  acceptable. 

(6.) 

Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Article  10 and  12 of 

Regulation  (EEC)  N° 2423/88, the Commission, after consultation within the 

Advisory  Committee, has accepted the undertaking offered by the  Bulgarian 

parties and furthermore proposes to impose definitive  anti-dumping 

measures  in the form of a variable duty at a level of 89 ECU per tonne 

product concerning  imports originating  in Poland. 

(7.) 

The Commission  in line with consistent  practice in such circumstances, 

proposes to collect definitively the amounts secured by way of provisional 

anti-dumping  duty. 

COUNCIL  REGULATION (EC)  N« 

IMPOSING A DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING  DUTY ON IMPORTS OF 

UREA AMMONIUM  NITRATE SOLUTION ORIGINATING  IN 

BULGARIA AND POLAND, EXPORTED BY COMPANIES  NOT 

EXEMPTED  FROM THE DUTY, AND COLLECTING  DEFINITIVELY 

THE PROVISIONAL  DUTY  IMPOSED 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European  Community, 

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) N° 2423/88 of 11 July  1988 on 

protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries  not members of the 

European  Economic  Community^), as last amended by Regulation  (EC) No 

522/94(2), and in particular Article  12 thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after  consultation 

within the Advisory  Committee, 

Whereas: 

A. 

Provisional  Measures 

(1.) 

The Commission, by Regulation (EC)  1506/94 <3) (hereinafter  referred to as 

the 'provisional duty  Regulation'), imposed a provisional anti-dumping  duty 

(1) 
(2) 
(3) 

O J N ° L 2 0 9,  2.8.1988, p. 1 
OJ No L 66, 10.03.1994, p. 10 
OJN°  L 162, 30.06.1994, p. 16 

on imports into the Community of urea-ammonium-nitrate  solution ("UAN") 

originating  in Bulgaria and Poland, and falling under CN code 3102 80 00. 

(2.)  By Regulation (EC) No 2620/94 (4), the Council extended the validity of this 

duty until 31 December  1994. 

B. 

Subsequent  Procedure 

(3.) 

Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty, 

• 

• 

the Bulgarian exporter,  Chimimport, and the Bulgarian  producer, 

Agropolychim Devnia, 

the Polish exporter, CIECH, and the two Polish producers, Z.A. 

Kedzierzyn and Z.A.  Pulawy, 

the European  Fertilizer  Import Association ("EFIA") and 

• 

the European  Fertilizer Manufacturer Association ("EFMA"), i.e. the 

complainants, 

submitted comments in writing. Parties who so requested were granted an 

opportunity to be heard by the Commission. 

(4.)  Upon request, parties were informed of the essential facts and 

considerations  on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the 

imposition of definitive anti-dumping  measures and the definitive collection of 

amounts secured by way of a provisional duty. They were also granted a 

reasonable  period within which to make representations  subsequent to the 

disclosure. 

(5.) 

The parties' comments were considered, and the Commission altered its 

conclusions where deemed appropriate. 

(4) 

OJ N" L 280, 29  10.1994, p. 

(6.)  Owing to the complexity  of the case, in particular due to the number of 

producers  located in the Community  and due to the fact that the  Polish 

producers and exporter as well as the producers  located in the  analogue 

country were newly operating under market economy conditions, the 

investigation overran the normal duration of one year provided for in Article 7 

(9) (a) of Regulation (EEC) No. 2423/88 (hereafter  referred to as the 'basic 

Regulation'). 

C.  Product under investigation; like product 

(7.)  As no comments  have been presented by any party regarding the product 

under consideration and the like product after the imposition of  provisional 

anti-dumping  measures, the findings set out in recitals (9) and (10) of the 

provisional duty  Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

D. 

Dumping 

1. 

Bulgaria 

(8.)  No new issues were raised by the Bulgarian interested parties  concerning 

the determination of dumping. Therefore the conclusions  reached at the 

provisional stage are hereby confirmed. 

The dumping margin for Bulgarian imports is therefore definitively  determined 

at a level of 33.3% expressed as a percentage of the  free-at-Community 

frontier price. 

2. 

Poland 

a.  Normal  value 

(9.)  One Polish producer, Z.A.  Pulawy ("ZAP"),  as for the  provisional 

determination, has submitted that the Commission should base the 

determination of normal value on the cost of production  information 

specifically  prepared by the company for its response to the questionnaire. 

However, ZAP did not supply any supporting  information to show that this 

information better  reflected the company's cost situation than its general cost 

accounting data. 

With respect to certain substantial monthly variations  in ZAP's unit cost of 

production as contained in the company's general cost accounting data, the 

company submitted supporting documentation after the imposition of the 

provisional anti-dumping  measures. However, the company was not in a 

position to explain the underlying  reasons for the cost variations in any 

satisfactory  manner. 

In these circumstances, it is considered that the cost of  production 

information as contained in this producer's  internal cost accounting  records 

for the nine months during which the substantial variations did not occur, is 

representative and that the determination of the constructed normal value at 

the definitive stage should be based thereon. 

b.  Export  price 

(10.)  One producer, Z.A.  Kedzierzyn ("ZAK"),  has submitted that  adjustments 

made by the Commission, in the light of the missing and  contradictory 

information  received, to certain export transaction prices at the  provisional 

stage in order to take into account commissions  paid to the exporter via 

which the sales transactions were made, were not justified. However, ZAK 

did not submit any information  in support of this claim showing that the 

approach taken by the Commission at the provisional stage was not 

appropriate. Therefore, the approach taken at the provisional stage is hereby 

maintained with respect to ZAK's export price. 

(11.)  The other producer, i.e. ZAP, has made a submission concerning the 

completeness of the reporting of its export sales transactions. At the 

provisional stage the Commission  had not considered the reporting  complete 

on the basis of the information available. However, at the definitive stage, in 

the light of the additional and conclusive information provided, it is 

considered appropriate to alter this approach and to base ZAP's export price 

on the information submitted without making the adjustment  made at the 

provisional stage. 

c.  Comparison 

(12.)  ZAP has requested that certain adjustments should be made in comparing its 

constructed  normal value to its export price. It should be noted that such 

adjustments can be granted In accordance with Article 2 (9) and (10) of the 

basic Regulation if there are differences  affecting  price comparability.  In such 

circumstances any claim must be proved to be justified. ZAP has not 

submitted any such justification, any quantification of its claim nor any 

supporting documentation. Therefore this claim has not been accepted. 

d.  Conclusion 

(13.) 

in the light of the approaches  and conclusions set out above with respect to 

the determination of normal value, the export price and the  comparison 

between the two, the dumping margins at the definitive stage expressed as a 

percentage of the free-at-Community frontier level are set at the following 

level: 

ZAK:  40%. 

ZAP:  27%. 

(14.)  For the case of any other Polish exporting producer or exporter who failed to 

reply to the Commission's questionnaire or did not otherwise  make itself 

known, dumping was determined on the basis of the facts available in 

accordance with the provisions of Article 7 (7) (b) of the basic Regulation. 

In this connection, it is considered that the highest dumping  margin 

determined with regard to a producer which had co-operated  in the 

framework  of this investigation was appropriate. 

This approach was considered  necessary  in order not to provide an 

unacceptable  bonus for non-co-operation  and to avoid creating an 

opportunity for circumvention. 

3.  General: 

(15.) 

In view of the approach taken with respect to the determination of the  normal 

value for Bulgaria and Poland described above, the Commission considers it 

necessary to foresee the review of the measures  imposed in this  Regulation 

after one year if changes  in the production cost structure of the  producers 

located in the exporting countries warrant such a review. 

E. 

Injury 

1. 

Volume  of  Community  market 

(16.)  Concerning total Community  consumption of UAN, no new information was 

received after the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping  measures. 

Therefore the size of this market provisionally established, i.e. 2.8  million 

tons in 1992 as well as in the investigation  period measured  in UAN with a 

nitrogen content of 32%, is hereby confirmed. 

2. 

Cumulation  of dumped  Bulgarian  and  Polish  imports 

(17.)  Based on Community  import statistics, the Bulgarian exporter and the 

Bulgarian producer  have reiterated the argument already put forward at the 

provisional stage, namely that imports into the Community  originating  in 

Bulgaria should not have been cumulated with those of Poland (see recital 

(32) of the provisional duty  Regulation). 

(18.) 

It should be noted that Bulgarian imports of UAN in the investigation  period 

represented a Community  market share of about 7%. 

Given the justification provided in the provisional duty Regulation  (see 

recitals  (33) and (34) of the provisional duty Regulation)  and the market 

position reached by Bulgarian imports, it is hereby concluded at the  definitive 

stage that all the elements that justify the cumulation of imports for the 

purposes of the injury assessment,  notably a parallel trend in volumes  and 

prices are present in this proceeding. In particular  neither the level of imports 

into the Community of UAN originating  in Bulgaria or in Poland can be 

regarded as negligible. 

3, 

Volume  and  Prices  of dumped  Bulgarian  and  Polish  imports 

(19.)  With respect to the imports concerned, EFIA has submitted that these 

imports replaced UAN imports from third countries and that overall imports of 

UAN into the Community declined. Therefore, EFIA has concluded, that 

imports of Bulgarian and Polish origin cannot constitute an injury factor  in the 

assessment of the situation of the Community  industry. 

(20.)  With respect to the situation concerning  import volumes as described above, 

it is noted that an assessment of import volumes alone is not sufficient  in 

order to evaluate the injurious situation of the Community  industry. Such an 

evaluation must also cover the analysis of the prices of these imports. Such 

an analysis was made for the determination of the provisional  anti-dumping 

measures and it was concluded, as set out in recitals (36) and (37) of the 

provisional duty Regulation, that the prices of the imports  concerned 

decreased substantially  and were at a level substantially  below the prices of 

the Community  industry. 

4. 

Situation  of the  Community  industry 

(21.)  Following the adoption of the provisional duty Regulation, EFIA has 

submitted that the Community industry has not lost market share up to the 

investigation  period. EFIA has concluded that this development  is not 

compatible with the conclusion on the injurious situation reached by the 

Commission at the provisional stage. 

(22.) 

It should be noted in this context that it is not considered necessary for all 

injury factors enumerated  in Article 4 (2) (c) of the basic Regulation to show a 

negative trend in order to reach a conclusion that the Community  industry 

has suffered  material injury. The Community  industry has kept its market 

share on the Community  UAN market in 1992, slightly increasing  it up to the 

investigation period as pointed out in recital (40) of the provisional duty 

Regulation. However, the stabilisation of the market position of the 

Community  industry could only be achieved by a substantial reduction  in the 

Community industry's sales prices (see recitals (38) to (41) of the  provisional 

duty Regulation).  It is this price reduction that has led to a substantial 

reduction of the Community  industry's turnover and, ultimately, to  substantial 

financial losses. 

5, 

Conclusion 

(23.) 

In conclusion, the significant price depression registered on the  Community 

market and the negative development of the Community  industry's  financial 

situation  leading to significant financial losses, led the Commission to 

conclude at the provisional stage that the Community  UAN industry  has been 

suffering  material injury within the meaning of Article 4 (1) of the basic 

Regulation. 

This conclusion is hereby confirmed. 

F. 

1. 

Causation 

Impact of the imports concerned 

(24.)  With respect to the causation of the Community  industry's  injury, EFIA stated 

that Bulgarian and Polish UAN import prices could not have caused injury to 

the Community  industry. On the contrary,  EFIA alleged that pricing  behaviour 

between the companies of the Community  industry  caused substantia! 

downward  price movements and, ultimately, injury to the  Community 

industry.  EFIA has stated furthermore that the imports concerned were not 

substantial enough in volume to influence prices on the Community  UAN 

market. 

(25.)  With respect to the above submission by EFIA, the Commission  established 

that there were variations between the prices obtained by different 

Community  producers. However, as already pointed out in the  provisional 

duty  Regulation in recitals (36) and (37), the investigation has confirmed that 

the imports concerned consistently  undercut the Community  producers' 

prices. The detailed analysis of the prices obtained by the  Community 

10 

producers and the exporters' prices showed that the imports concerned  did 

not merely follow price decreases of the Community  producers  but were 

consistently  made at lower levels. Moreover,  EFIA's claim that a combined 

volume of the UAN imports concerned which represents 27 % of the 

Community  market is not sufficient  in order to influence prices cannot be 

accepted, UAN being a commodity type product which is highly  price 

sensitive. 

(26.)  Finally, as far as the injurious situation of the Community  industry is 

concerned, the investigation conducted revealed that the deterioration of the 

financial situation of the Community  industry  leading to substantial financial 

losses in the investigation period coincided with the surge of the  low-priced 

imports concerned. In the light of the above, it is concluded that the  imports 

concerned significantly contributed to the material injury suffered  by the 

Community  industry. 

2. 

Other  factors 

(27.)  EFIA has further argued that a decrease  in consumption and demand on the 

Community fertiliser market was the cause of the Community  UAN-industry's 

problems. Moreover,  EFIA stated that the production overcapacity  of the 

fertiliser producers concerned and price decreases for intermediary  products 

of UAN were the reason for the Community  industry's  injurious situation. 

(28.)  With respect to the above arguments, the Commission  notes that, while it 

can not be excluded that the development  of the Community fertiliser  market, 

the industry's fertiliser production capacity and prices of  intermediary 

products  may have had some impact on the general situation of the 

Community  UAN market and UAN industry, this cannot alter the fact that a 

continuous  increase in import volumes of UAN originating  in Bulgaria  and 

11 

Poland together with prices which substantially  undercut the prices of the 

Community  industry, contributed to, and caused to a large extent, the 

difficulties which the Community  UAN industry faces. Moreover,  it has to be 

pointed out that the claims made by EFIA were largely supported by 

information  referring to the Community fertiliser  market as a whole, while the 

present anti-dumping  proceeding deals specifically with UAN. In that  respect, 

it must be emphasised that contrary to the development  of the  market 

situation for other fertiliser products, the demand situation on the  Community 

UAN market, as shown in the provisional duty  Regulation, was  relatively 

stable only showing a slight decrease  up to and including the  investigation 

period (see recital (31) of the provisional duty  Regulation). 

In the light of the above, it is concluded that the arguments and claims put 

forward by EFIA were based on statistical data which did not reflect the 

evolution of the UAN market and completely  left aside a very  significant 

reason of the Community  industry's situation. Therefore these  arguments 

and claims have to be rejected. 

3. 

Conclusion 

(29.)  As no other arguments concerning the causation of the injury sustained by 

the Community  industry were submitted after the imposition of the  provisional 

anti-dumping  measures and in the light of the above considerations,  it is 

hereby concluded that the high volume, low-priced dumped  imports of UAN 

originating  in Bulgaria and Poland have, independently  of other factors 

affecting the Community  industry caused material injury to the  Community 

industry, particularly  in the form of heavy financial losses. 

12 

G.  Community  interest 

(30.)  EFIA has submitted  in this respect, that as the Community  industry  cannot 

satisfy the total Community demand of UAN, the imposition of anti-dumping 

measures  limiting the sources of supply is not in the Community  interest. 

(31.)  While this argument appears to be in contradiction with the argument  put 

forward  by EFIA concerning causality  in recital (26.) that the Community  UAN 

industry  has suffered  injury due to its production overcapacity,  it must be 

emphasised  in any event that the aim of the imposition of anti-dumping 

measures  is not to prevent imports of the product concerned  into the 

Community. The aim is to eliminate the trade distorting effects of injurious 

dumping and restore effective competition. 

With respect to the various sources of supply available to Community  users, 

there were substantial imports of UAN from other third countries before the 

substantial increase of the dumped imports concerned as was pointed out in 

the provisional duty  Regulation (see recital (44). These sources of supply  are 

potentially still available at the present time and there is no reason to believe 

that a shortage of the product will occur, bearing in mind that the  Community 

market will be potentially  more attractive for suppliers from third  countries 

once a fair competitive situation is re-established. 

Given, that no other arguments concerning the Community  interest  have 

been raised after the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping measures it 

is hereby concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping  measures  is in the 

Community  interest. 

13 

H.  Anti-dumping  measures 

(32.)  After the imposition of the provisional duties, EFIA has submitted that the 

imposition of these duties was illegal, given the existence of a consultation 

clause in the trade agreements concluded between the Community  and the 

two exporting countries. 

(33.)  With respect to the two trade agreements concerned, these provide for the 

application of anti-dumping measures. Furthermore, the  agreements 

specifically  allow the imposition of anti-dumping  measures  in the case of 

particular  urgency without prior consultation of the other party. It was 

concluded by the Commission that given the length of the  investigation 

carried out prior to the imposition of provisional anti-dumping  measures and 

given the substantial dumping of exports and the consequent  material injury 

inflicted on the Community  industry established by the Commission, 

provisional anti-dumping  measures had to be imposed  urgently. 

It is therefore confirmed that the course of action taken therefore  conforms 

with the obligations of the Community as foreseen in the trade  agreements 

with the two exporting countries. 

(34.)  Based on the conclusions of dumping, injury, causality and Community 

interest reached above, consideration was given to the form and level of anti 

dumping measures required in order to eliminate the trade distorting effect of 

the injurious dumping. 

In the present circumstances, the overall loss-making situation of the 

Community  industry of UAN had to be taken into account. 

14 

(35.)  Accordingly, the Commission calculated the level of prices at which the 

Community  industry would be able to cover its average costs of production 

and to obtain a reasonable profit. 

As far as the determination of the reasonable profit is concerned, EFMA has 

claimed that the profit rate used by the Commission  in the  provisional 

determination, i.e. at a level of 5% on turnover,  is too low. In particular  EFMA 

has put forward that such a rate would not allow the Community  UAN 

industry to sustain production of UAN in the EU, that the target  price 

calculated would not allow the Community  UAN industry to finance 

necessary  replacement and investment costs and, finally, that the same 

profit rate should be used in the UAN proceeding as in a previous  regional 

anti-dumping  proceeding concerning  imports of ammonium  nitrate5 ("AN") 

since AN is one of the two main ingredients of UAN. 

(36.)  As far as the above claim by EFMA is concerned, the Community  producers 

put forward in the response to the questionnaire a variety of profit targets 

used by the companies internally. These targets varied significantly  among 

companies and in a number of cases were not established specifically for 

UAN but were the result of an overall group policy in the assessment of 

investment  projects. In these circumstances, the Commission considered at 

the provisional stage that the Community  industry  had not specifically 

supported  its claim on the level of a reasonable profit margin. After the 

provisional determinations  EFMA has supplied no new information. 

For the provisional determination, the Commission derived the profit  margin 

used by  reference to the fact that the product concerned  is a mature  product 

needing only moderate funding for investment and research and 

development.  No information has been received from EFMA justifying a 

different  assessment at the definitive stage. 

Commission  Decision (94/293/EC), OJ L 129, 21.5.94, p. 24 

15 

As far as the comparison with the regional AN case is concerned, the claim 

put forward  by EFMA is not deemed justified. Indeed, the target price 

calculated  in that anti-dumping  proceeding took particular account of the 

production and sales situation of the regional industry concerned which was 

not identical to the one of the Community  UAN industry.  In particular the 

profit margin used in the AN anti-dumping proceeding was not applied on the 

actual costs of production of the industry concerned but on that  industry's 

actual cost of production adjusted to exclude a cost increase during the 

investigation  period due to factors other than dumped imports. 

In conclusion the claim put forward by EFMA has not been found  acceptable 

and the profit margin determined at the provisional stage should be 

maintained for the definitive determination. 

(37.)  On this basis and taking account of the Community  industry's cost of 

production a minimum import price was calculated which would permit the 

Community industry to raise its prices to a profitable level. 

(38.) 

It was established that the injury thresholds thus established are lower than 

the dumping margins of both producers located in Poland and of the exporter 

located in Bulgaria, after taking into account all changes made on the basis 

of the assessments carried out after the imposition of provisional  anti 

dumping  measures. 

(39.)  Given the material injury suffered by the Community  industry  in the form of 

financial losses, given the possibility of the absorption of an ad-valorem duty 

with a detrimental effect on the price situation in the Community  market for 

this seasonal and highly price sensitive product and given the existence of a 

number of import channels via third country companies, it is considered 

appropriate to impose a variable duty at the level which would permit the 

16 

Community  industry to raise its prices to profitable levels for imports  invoiced 

directly by Bulgarian or Polish producers or by parties which have exported 

the product concerned during the investigation period and a specific duty on 

the same basis for all other imports in order to avoid the circumvention of the 

anti-dumping  measures. 

I. 

Undertakings 

(40.)  Having been informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis 

of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti 

dumping  measures, the exporters and producers concerned  located in 

Bulgaria and Poland have offered undertakings. However, the  Commission 

only considers the offer of undertaking jointly offered  by the  Bulgarian 

producer and exporter as acceptable as only this undertaking would ensure 

that the injury inflicted on the Community  industry was removed by raising 

the export price to a non-injurious  level. In these circumstances the 

Commission  has considered the offer of  undertakings  at a lower level by the 

Polish producers and exporter as unacceptable and has informed the 

exporters and producers concerned  accordingly. 

The undertakings offered by the Bulgarian producer and exporter were 

accepted by Commission  Decision 94/..../EC. 

Notwithstanding the acceptance of the undertaking, a residual duty should be 

imposed on imports originating  in Bulgaria in order to avoid the  circumvention 

of the anti-dumping  measures. 

J. 

Collection  of  the  provisional  duties 

(41.) 

In view of the dumping margins established, the injury caused to the 

Community  industry and of the latter's precarious financial situation, it is 

17 

considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of provisional anti 

dumping duty for all companies should be collected definitively, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of urea  ammonium 

nitrate solution originating  in Bulgaria and Poland and falling within 

CN code 3102 80 00. 

2. The amount of anti-dumping duty for imports originating  in Bulgaria shall be 20 

ECU per tonne product (TARIC additional Code: 8792) except for imports of the 

product directly invoiced to  an unrelated  importer after the entry into force  of this 

Regulation by the following exporters or producers  located in Bulgaria: 

Chimimport Investment and Fertilizer  Inc., Sofia, 

Agropolychim, Devnya, 

(TARIC additional Code: 8791) 

which shall be exempt from the duty subject to  the above conditions pursuant  to 

the acceptance of a joint  undertaking by Commission  Decision 94/.../EC. 

3. The amount of anti-dumping duty for imports originating  in Poland shall be the 

difference  between the minimum import price of 89 ECU per tonne product and the 

CIF Community frontier price plus the CCT duty payable per tonne product in all 

cases where the CIF Community frontier price plus the CCT duty payable per tonne 

product is less than the minimum import price and where the imports put into free 

circulation are directly invoiced to the unrelated importer by the following  exporters 

or producers  located in Poland: 

CIECH, Warsaw, 

18 

Zakiady Azotowe  Kedzierzyn, Kedzierzyn, 

Zaklady Azotowe  Pulawy,  Pulawy, 

(TARIC additional Code:8793). 

For imports put into free circulation which are not directly invoiced by one of the 

above exporters or producers located in Poland to the unrelated importer the 

following specific duty is set: 

for the product originating in Poland: 22 ECU per tonne product  (TARIC 

additional Code:8794) with the exception of the product certified to be 

produced by Zaklady Azotowe Pulawy for which the specific duty is  19 ECU 

per tonne product (TARIC additional Code:8795) 

4.  Unless otherwise specified, the provisions  in force concerning customs  duties 

shall apply. 

Article 2 

The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to 

Regulation (EC) No 1506/94 shall be definitively collected in full. 

Article 3 

This Regulation shall enter 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, 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM (94) 656 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

il  02 

Catalogue number : CB-CO-94-674-EN-C 

ISBN 92-77-83979-1 

Office  for Official  Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg