Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ferro-silico- manganese originating in Russia, Ukraine, Brazil and South Afrika
Date: 1995-07-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Brazil, CIS countries, South Africa, anti-dumping duty, ferro-alloy

COMMISSION  OF THE  EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

•it 
•it 
it 

<r 
-it 
it 

Brussels,  20.07.1995 
COM(95)  393 

final 

Proposal  for  a 

COUNCIL  REGULATION  (EC) 

imposing a definitive  anti-dumping duty on imports of  ferro-silico-manganese 
originating in Russia, Ukraine, Brazil and South Africa 

(presented  by  the  Commission) 

EXPLANATORY  MEMORANDUM 

1. 

By Regulation (EC) No 3119/94 of  19 December  1994 \  the Commission 

imposed provisional  anti-dumping duties on imports into the Community of  ferro-

silico-manganese  (FeSiMn) originating in Russia, Ukraine, Brazil and South 

Africa,  falling  within CN code 7202 30 00. No provisional anti-dumping  duties 

were imposed on imports originating  in Georgia because they were found  to be de 

minimis. 

2. 

By Council Regulation  (EC) No 866/952, the Council extended the validity of 
these duties for a period of two months. 

3. 

Subsequently  a number of parties requested and were granted hearings and 

presented written comments which were taken into account where appropriate. 

The Commission continued  to seek and verify  all the information  it deemed 

necessary  for its definitive  findings. 

4. 

Since both Russia and Ukraine are non-market economies, normal value for  these 

countries was based on the normal value established for Brazil, a market economy 

country which was chosen as the reference  country. 

5. 

The South African  producers claimed that their exports to the EU should not be 

cumulated with those of Russia, Ukraine, and Brazil for the purpose of 

determination of injury  because the trends of import quantities, prices and market 

share were significantly  different  to those of the other exporting countries 

concerned  and, looking at the imports from  South Africa  in isolation, they would 

not have caused material  injury  to the Community  industry. 

1 O.J. No L 330, 21.12.1994, p. 15 
2  O.J. No L 89, 21.4.1995, p. 1 

A* 

6. 

The Brazilian  producers argued that the dumped imports from the exporting 

countries concerned  did not cause the injury  suffered  by the Community  industry. 

7. 

The definitive  determination  confirmed  the existence of dumping and  material 

injury  caused by these imports with regard to Russia, Ukraine, Brazil and  South 

Africa.  For the purpose of the determination  of material injury, the imports  from 

these countries were analysed cumulatively  because it was found  that the imports 

from each of these countries competed  with each other and with the like product 

of the Community  industry, that import volumes from  each of the countries 

concerned were significant  in the investigation period and that price trends were 

similar. 

8. 

The provisional findings  concerning the de minimis imports originating in 
Georgia were confirmed  definitively. 

9. 

The Ukrainian  authorities  in conjunction  with the Ukrainian  producers, the 

Brazilian and the South  African  producers offered  undertakings. 

10. 

The Commission  considered  the undertakings offered  by the two Brazilian 

producers, one of which was the subsidiary  of the other, as not acceptable  because 

they were considered  not to remove injurious  dumping. 

11.  Whereas the undertakings offered  by the South African  producers and the 

Ukrainian  authorities, in conjunction  with the two cooperating  Ukrainian 

exporters were considered  to be acceptable, because it was concluded  that they 

could be efficiently  monitored  and the minimum prices contained  in these 

undertakings  would remove  injurious  dumping. 

fa 

12. 

Definitive  anti-dumping  duties should be imposed on imports originating in 

Brazil and Russia. The duty should be at the level of the dumping  margin 

established  for imports from each country  since they were found  to be lower than 

the injury  margins. Furthermore, with regard to non-cooperating exporters  from 

Ukraine and South Africa,  residual  anti-dumping duties should be imposed,  for 

Ukraine on the level of the dumping  margin determined  for the two cooperating 

producers and, for South Africa,  on the level of the highest dumping margin 

found  for the two producers which cooperated  in the proceeding. 

13. 

In view of the dumping margins found  and the extend of the injury  caused  to the 

Community  industry, the anti-dumping duties provisionally  imposed should be 

collected  at the levels of the dumping margins definitively  established. 

14. 

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopts the draft  Regulation  annexed 

imposing a definitive  anti-dumping  duty on imports of  ferro-silico-manganese 

originating  in Russia, Ukraine, Brazil  and South Africa,  exempting  those 

producers from  which undertakings were accepted by the Commission, and 

collecting the provisional  anti-dumping duties. 

4c 

COUNCIL REGULATION  (EC) N°... 

of 

imposing a definitive  anti-dumping duty on imports of  ferro-silico-manganese 

originating in Russia, Ukraine, Brazil and South  Africa 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN  UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing  the European  Community, 

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) N° 3283/94 of 22 December  19941 on  protection 
against  dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community,  as  last 
amended  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1251/952,  and  in  particular  Article  23  thereof, 
which  laid  down  that  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2423/88  of  11 July  19883 on  protection 
against  dumped  or  subsidised  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European 
Economic  Community  as  last  amended  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  522/944  shall 
continue  to  apply  to  proceedings  in  relation  to  which  an  investigation  pending  on  1 

September  1994 has  not  been  concluded  by  the date  of  entry  into  force  of  Regulation  (EC) 

No 3283/94, 

Having  regard  to  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  N°  2423/88  of  11 July  1988, and  in  particular 
Article  12 thereof, 

Having  regard .to the  proposal  submitted  by  the  Commission  after  consultations  within  the 

Advisory  Committee, 

Whereas: 

1 OJ No L 349, 31.12.1994 
2  OJ No L 122. 02.06.1995. p.l 
3O J N o L 2 0 9,  2.8.1988, p. 1 
4O J N o L 6 6,  10.3.1994, p. 10 

A. PROVISIONAL  MEASURES 

(1)  By  Regulation  (EC)  N°  3119/94  ("provisional  duty  Regulation")  5,  the  Commission 
into  the  Community  of  ferro-silico-
imposed  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  on  imports 

manganese  (FeSiMn)  originating  in  Russia,  Ukraine, Brazil  and  South  Africa,  falling  within 

CN code 7202 30 00. 

By  Regulation  (EC)  N°  866/95  6,  the  Council  extended  the  validity  of  these  duties  for  a 
period of two months. 

B. SUBSEQUENT  PROCEDURE 

(2) 

Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duties, 

- the Comité de Liaison des Industries de Ferro-Alliages ("Euroalliages";  complainant), 

- two South African  producers, Highveld  Steel and Vanadium Corporation  Limited 

and Samancor Limited, 

-  the  Ukrainian  authorities  and  two  Ukrainian  producers,  Nikopol  Ferro  Alloy  Plant  and 
Zaporozhye Ferro Alloy Plant, 

- two Brazilian  producers, Companhia Paulista.de Ferro Ligas and Sibra 

Eletrosiderurgica  Brasileira  S.A., 

- the British  Iron and Steel Producers Association  (BISPA), 

5O J N o L 3 3 0,  21.12.94, p. 15 
6O J N o L 8 9,  21.4.95, p. 1 

- an unrelated  importer in Luxembourg, S.A. des Minerais, 

- an importer  in the U.K., Victoria Alloys (U.K.) Limited, 

made their views known in writing. Parties who so requested were granted a hearing -

by the  Commission. 

(3) 

The Commission  continued to seek and verify  all information  it deemed  necessary  for 

its definitive  findings. 

(4) 

Upon  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  anti-dumping 

duties  and  the collection  of  amounts  secured  by way of  a provisional  duty. The  parties  were 

also  granted  a  reasonable  period  within  which  to  make  representations  subsequent  to  the 

disclosures. 

(5) 

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

where deemed  appropriate. 

C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION, LIKE PRODUCT 

(6) 

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 

I.Normal value 

Russia,  Ukraine 

(7) 

In the  absence of any new  arguments, the findings  laid  down  in recitals  12 and  13 of 

the provisional duty Regulation are  confirmed. 

Brazil 

(8) 

The  Commission  had,  for  the  purpose  of  the  provisional  findings,  calculated  one 

normal  value  and, consequently, one dumping  margin  for  the two Brazilian  producers  which 

cooperated  in  the  proceeding  because  they  were  found  to  be  related,  i.  e.  one  was  the 

subsidiary  of the other. 

(9) 

The Brazilian  producers  requested  the determination  of individual  normal  values  and 

accordingly  individual  dumping  margins.  They  argued  that  the  approach  adopted  by  the 

Commission  is  not  in  line  with  Article  13 (2) of  the Basic  Regulation  which  stipulates  that 

anti-dumping  duties  should be imposed  on an individual basis for each cooperating  exporter. 

It  was  further  argued  that  this  treatment  is  also  contrary  to  Article  2  (3)  (c)  according  to 

which normal value should be based on prices or costs of another exporter only if an exporter 

does  not  produce  nor  sell  the  product  in  the  country  of  origin.  They  also  claimed  that  they 

operate  separately  in  the  market  place  and  pointed  out  that  they  keep  separate  records  and 

accounting  systems. Finally, they  argued  that the determination  of only  one dumping  margin 

would  unduly  penalize  one  of  them  because  its  dumping  margin  is  significantly  lower  than 

that of the other. On these grounds, the Brazilian  exporters  have requested  the  determination 

of individual dumping margins. 

(10) 

It  is  the  general  practice  of  the  Community  institutions  to  calculate  one  dumping 

margin  for  producers  where  one  is  a  subsidiary  of,  and  therefore  subject  to  control  by, 

another  on  the  basis  of  an  average  of  the  data  submitted  by  both  producers.  Calculating 

individual  dumping  margins  would  create  the  likelihood  of  circumvention  of  anti-dumping 

measures  (thus  rendering them ineffective)  by enabling the related producers  to channel  their 

exports  to  the  Community  through  the  affiliate  with  the  lowest  dumping  margin.  Such  an 

approach  is neither  contrary  to Article  2 (3)  (c) of the Basic Regulation,  since  the  exporting 

entity  produces  and  sells  on  the  Brazilian  domestic  market,  nor  to  Article  13  (2)  which 

requires  the  name  of  the  supplier  to  be  mentioned  in  the  regulation  imposing  duties  only  if 

this  is  practical.  In  the  case  in  question,  since  only  two  Brazilian  producers  cooperated  and 

one  was  a  subsidiary  of  the  other,  one  dumping  margin  was  established  which  was  also 

considered  appropriate for non-cooperating producers. 

(11) 

In  conclusion,  the  methodology  used  for  calculating  normal  value  in  respect  of  the 

two  cooperating  Brazilian  producers,  as  set  out  in  recitals  14  -  18  of  the  provisional  duty 

Regulation  is  confirmed. 

South Africa 

(12)  The  Commission  determined  normal  value  on  the  basis  of  sales  prices  on  the  South 

African  domestic  market  charged  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade  and  in  respect  of 

representative quantities in accordance with Article 2 (3) (a) of the Basic Regulation. 

(13)  One  South  African  producer  alleged  that  certain  sales  on  the  South  African  market 

were made to customers  with which there was, indirectly  through one of its shareholders  and 

an  affiliate  of  the  latter,  a  shareholder  relationship.  This  producer  claimed  that  these 

customers  should  therefore  be considered  as being  related  to the  effect  that  the  sales  should 

be  disregarded  for  the  determination  of  normal  value.  This  exporter  claimed  that  the 

remaining domestic  sales in the investigation  period constitute  less than 5% of the volume of 

exports  to  the  European  Union  (EU).  In  consequence,  this  exporter  submitted  that  the 

Commission  should  construct  normal  value  on  the  basis  of  costs  of  manufacture,  SG&A 

expenses and a reasonable amount for  profit. 

(14)  This  submission  has  to be  rejected.  The  South  African  producer  did  not  provide  any 

information  which  would  suggest  that the relationship  had  any  impact  on  the prices  of  such 

sales  transactions  to  the  extent  that  they  should  be  considered  as  not  being  in  the  ordinary 

course  of  trade.  Furthermore,  the  Commission  did  not  during  the  investigation  find  any 

indication  which  would  suggest  so.  Finally,  the  Commission  found,  in  accordance  with 

Article 2 (7) of the Basic Regulation, that the sales prices  and costs  involved  for  transactions 

to  the  customers  in  question  were  in  line  with  those  for  transactions  to  clients  which, 

according to this exporter, were entirely  unrelated. 

Therefore,  the  findings  set  out  in  recitals  19  -  21  of  the  provisional  duty  Regulation  are 

confirmed. 

2. Export prices 

Russia 

(15) 

In the absence of any new arguments, the findings  laid down in recital 22 of the 

provisional duty Regulation are  confirmed. 

Ukraine 

(16) 

For the  purpose  of  its preliminary  determination,  the Commission  determined  export 

prices for FeSiMn originating  in Ukraine partly on the basis of verified  prices paid or payable 

by two unrelated  importers cooperating  in the investigation  and partly  on data obtained  from 

Eurostat.  Eurostat  was  considered  the  best  evidence  available  in  accordance  with  Article  7 

(7)  (b)  of  the  Basic  Regulation  for  the  remaining  export  sales  not  accounted  for  by  the  two 

importers in question. 

(17)  One  of  the  two  Ukrainian  producers  cooperating  claimed  that,  in  the  framework  of 

the  preliminary  determination,  it  had  been  deprived  by  the  Commission  of  its  basic  legal 

rights,  since  export  prices  (and  adjustments  to the  export  prices,  see  recital  24 below)  were 

partially  based  on  confidential  information,  namely  data  obtained  from  the  two  unrelated 

importers  cooperating  in the proceeding  which  were not made  available  to it  for  verification 
purposes. 

(18) 

In  its  investigation  the  Commission  found,  as set out  in  recital  23 of  the  provisional 

duty  Regulation,  that  the  information  on  export  sales  submitted  by  the  other  cooperating 

Ukrainian  producer  was  found  not  to  be  usable;  in  particular  because  it  was  not  possible, 

from  the  information  submitted  in  the  questionnaire,  to  establish  whether  or  not  the  export 

sales  reported  were  destined  for  the  Community.  Moreover,  the  Ukrainian  producer 

concerned,  though  submitting  data  which  indicated  that  the  products  were  destined  for  the 

Community,  stated  that  it  could  not  guarantee  that  the  exported  quantities  were  actually 

imported  into  the  EU.  Added  to  this,  the  total  quantity  of  exports  to  the  Community,  as 

reported  in  the. responses  to  the  questionnaires  of  the  two  Ukrainian  producers  in  question, 

amounted  to more than three times the tonnages which were reported  in Eurostat  as being of 

Ukrainian  origin.  For  these  reasons,  the  data  submitted  by  the  Ukrainian  exporters  are 

deemed  misleading  and  have been  disregarded  for  the definitive  determination  of  the  export 

prices in accordance with Article 7 (7) (b) of the Basic Regulation. 

(19)  Export  prices  were  definitively  determined  on  the  basis  of  data  obtained  from 

Eurostat.  The  Eurostat  data  were  considered  more  appropriate  for  determining  the  export 

prices  for  FeSiMn  originating  in  Ukraine  because  they  covered  all  imports  into  the 

Community  during  the  investigation  period.  This  was  not  the  case  for  the  information 

obtained  from  the  two  cooperating  importers  which  represented  53  %  of  such  imports. 

Nevertheless, 

the 

information  obtained  from 

these 

importers,  and  verified  by 

the 

Commission,  indicated  that  the  prices  obtained  from  Eurostat  were  generally  in  line  with 

those reported by the cooperating importers. Furthermore, it should be noted that, with regard 

to  imports  from  non-market  economies,  such  as  Ukraine,  the  Community  institutions 

normally  establish  one  dumping  margin  for  all  exports  to  the  Community  and  do  not 

calculate  a  specific  margin  for  individual  exporters.  Therefore,  disregarding  the  price 

information  of the two Ukrainian  exporters  does not result  in a disadvantage  for  them,  given 

the fact  that their export transaction  prices are encompassed  in the Eurostat  data.  In  addition, 

the  Eurostat  data  are  publically  available  enabling  the  Ukrainian  exporter  concerned  to 

defend  itself by verifying  the correctness of the Community institutions' findings. 

Brazil 

(20) 

In  the  absence  of  any  new  arguments,  the  findings  laid  down  in  recital  25  of  the 

provisional duty Regulation are  confirmed. 

South Africa 

(21)  One  South  African  producer  claimed  certain  amendments  to  costs  and  profit 

calculated  by  the  Commission  in the  context  of  the reconstruction  of  export  prices  pursuant 

to  Article  2  (8)  (b)  of  the  Basic  Regulation.  This  claim,  which  was  duly  substantiated,  has 

been accepted  and the appropriate amendments have been made. 

Comparison 

Russia 

(22)  The amendments to adjustments  for comparison purposes concerning Brazil outlined 

in recitals 27 - 31 below were also made for the determination  of normal value for  Russia 

since Brazil was chosen as reference  country. 

In the absence of any other new arguments, the findings  laid down in recitals 27 and 29 of 

the provisional duty Regulation are hereby  confirmed. 

Ukraine 

(23) 

In  its  preliminary  determination,  the  Commission  found 

that  the 

information 

submitted by the two cooperating  Ukrainian  producers  with regard  to claims  for  adjustments 

for  differences  in physical  characteristics  and  selling  expenses  were either  not  supported  by 

tangible  evidence  (claims  for  adjustments  for  higher  phosphoros  content  and  crushing  and 

screening)  or  did  not  correspond  to  the  verified  information  submitted  by  two  unrelated 

importers  cooperating  in the  investigation  (credit  costs  and commissions).  The  Commission 

considered,  therefore,  that  the  information  submitted  by  the  Ukrainian  producers  was 

misleading  and based  its findings  on the data received from  the cooperating  importers  which 

were  verified  and  considered  to be the best  evidence  available  in  accordance  with  Article  7 

(7) (b) of the Basic Regulation. 

(24)  One  of  the  two  cooperating  Ukrainian  producers  claimed  that,  in  the  framework  of 

the  preliminary  determination,  it  had  been  deprived  by  the  Commission  of  its  basic  legal 

rights, since the determination  of adjustments  to the export  prices was based  on  confidential 

information,  namely  data  obtained  from  the  two  unrelated  importers  cooperating  in  the 
proceeding  which were not made available to it for verification  purposes. 

(25) 

It  should  be  pointed  out  that,  since  no  new  evidence  was  submitted  following  the 

imposition  of  provisional  duties,  the  adjustments  for  comparison  purposes,  as  requested  by 

the producer concerned, provisionally  calculated  and based on confidential  information,  have 

been  maintained  for  the  definitive  determination.  It was  considered  reasonable  to  base  such 

adjustments  on  verified  information  obtained  from  another  source  rather  than  reject  the 

claims  from 

the  exporters  concerned  on  the  grounds  that  they  were  not  properly 

substantiated. The allegation that the exporter in question has been deprived  of its basic  legal 

rights is therefore  unfounded. 

(26)  Those amendments  for adjustments  made for Brazil, for the reasons given  under 

recitals 27-31  below, were also applied for Ukraine. 

Brazil 

(27)  The Commission  had, for the purpose  of the provisional  findings,  established  normal 

value  on  a  monthly  basis.  In  months,  where  the  weigthed  average  domestic  prices  did  not 

permit  the recovery  of all costs  in the ordinary  course of trade, normal  value was based  on a 

constructed value in conformity  with Article 2 (3) (b) of the Basic Regulation. 

(28)  After  disclosure  of  the provisional  findings,  the two Brazilian  producers  claimed,  on 

the  basis  of  supporting  documentation,  adjustments  to  the  constructed  normal  value  for 

certain direct selling expenses and for direct credit costs. 

(29)  This  claim  has  been  accepted  in  part.  The  adjustments  requested  for  certain  direct 

selling  expenses,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Article  2  (9)  and  (10)  of  the  Basic 

Regulation  have been  incorporated  in the definitive  calculations  leading  to a decrease  in  the 

constructed normal values by 2.2 %. 

10 

(30)  However,  the  claim  concerning  credit  expenses  has  to  be  rejected.  The  producers 

concerned  have,  for  the  purpose  of constructing  normal  value,  not  quantified  such  expenses 

nor isolated  them from  the total  financing  costs incurred. In the light of this, the  Commission 

allocated  total financing  costs over domestic and export  sales on the basis of total  marketable 

tonnage produced. This methodology  is therefore confirmed  for the definitive  determination. 

(31) 

For  the  purpose  of  definitive  findings,  normal  value  was  established  on  the  basis  of 

the  methods  used  in  the  provisional  dumping  determination,  after  taking  into  account  the 

above-mentioned  adjustments. 

South Africa 

(32)  One  South  African  producer  claimed  on  the  basis  of  supporting  evidence,  a 

reassessment  of  the  selling  costs  incurred  in  the  Community.  This  claim  has  been  accepted 

and appropriate adjustments  for comparison  purposes have been made. 

Dumping  margins 

(33) 

In the light of the conclusions  set out above in respect of the determination  of  normal 

value  and  export  price,  and  the  comparison  between  the  two,  the  definitive  examination  of 

the  facts  showed  the  existence  of  dumping  in  respect  of  imports  of  the  product  concerned 

originating  in Russia, Ukraine, Brazil and South  Africa. 

(34)  The  weighted  average  dumping  margins  for  the  countries  and  companies  involved, 

expressed  as. a.percentage  of  the  CIF-Community  frontier  prices,  customs  duty-unpaid,  are 

the  following: 

-  Russia: 

-  Ukraine: 

-  Brazil: 

-  South  Africa: 

- Highveld  Steel  and Vanadium Corporation  Limited: 

- Samancor Limited: 

54.2 % 

43,9 % 

36,1 % 

45,3 % 

48,3 %. 

11 

(35)  With regard to the dumping  margin for producers in Brazil and South Africa  which 

did not cooperate in this proceeding,  the findings  set out in recital 32 of the provisional  duty 

Regulation  are, in absence of any new arguments, hereby  confirmed. 

E. INJURY 

1. Cumulation of the dumped  imports 

(36)  As  regards  Georgia,  the  findings  set  out  in  Recital  34  of  the  provisional  duty 

Regulation  in  respect  of  de  minimis  import  volumes  are,  in  the  absence  of  any  new 

arguments, hereby  confirmed. 

(37)  Two South African  producers  and one association  of the user industry  questioned  the 

Commission's  decision  to  cumulate  imports  from  South  Africa  with  imports  from  Ukraine, 

Russia  and  Brazil.  It  was  claimed  that  while  import  volumes  and  market  shares  increased 

significantly  for  Ukraine,  Russia  and  Brazil  in  the  period  1989  to  the  investigation  period, 

there was a decrease for  South Africa.  Furthermore, it was pointed out that in a past case the 

Commission  had  decided  not  to  cumulate  import  volumes  which  showed  diametrically 

opposed  progressions  (Tungsten  Carbide  case, OJ  1990 L 83 p 41). It was  also claimed  that 

the  trends  of  the  import  volumes  from  each  of  the exporting  countries  concerned  should  be 

similar  before  cumulating  because,  it  was  alleged,  the  Commission  in  previous  cases  had 

considered  increases  in import  volumes  and  therefore  import  trends  as one of  the  conditions 

for  cumulation.  Moreover,  it  was  claimed  that  the  export  prices  of  the  South  African 

producers were higher than those of Ukraine, Russia and Brazil. 

Finally,  it  was  argued  that  the  quality  of  the  South  African  product  was  such  that  it  did  not 

compete  with  those  from  the  other  countries  concerned,  in  particular,  because  South  Africa 

was the only country out of the countries concerned that was granted ISO 9002  accreditation. 

12 

(38)  After  consideration  of  the above  mentioned  arguments  and claims concerning  import 
volumes,  market  shares,  export  prices  and  quality  of  the  imported  product,  it  is  confirmed 
that  imports  from  South  Africa  should  be  cumulated  with  those  of  the  other  exporting 
countries concerned,  for the following  reasons: 

Although  the volume of  imports  from  South  Africa  decreased  from  1989 to the  investigation 

period  by  5.4  %,  imports  remained  considerable.  More  specifically,  import  volumes  were, 

apart  from  1990 (47227  tonnes), always  above 50000 tonnes  and  market  shares  ranged  from 

12.7 % in  1989 to 9.9  % in the investigation  period. Contrary  to what was established  in the 

Tungsten  Carbide case, import  trends from  South Africa  did  not show diametrically  opposed 

progressions.  In  fact,  South  African  import  volumes  were,  over  the  period  1989  to  the 

investigation  period, relatively stable, rather than declining  significantly; 

Price trends were similar, i.e. prices for  all exporting countries under investigation,  including 

South Africa,  decreased significantly  in the period  1989 to the investigation  period; and 

It  was  found  that  the  products  imported  from  the  countries  under  investigation  competed 

with  each  other  and  with  those  of  the  Community  industry.  The  "ISO  9002"  accreditation 

does  not  mean  that  a producer  so  accredited  produces  FeSiMn  different  from  those  of  other 

producers.  It  indicates  that  a  producer  has  adopted  an  internationally  recognized  quality 

control  system  which  offers  certain  guarantees  for  purchasers.  Furthermore,  it  has  been 

established  that  several  Community  producers  have  "ISO  9002"  accreditation  and,  in  any 

event, producers  without  this accreditation  are, in general, able to produce FeSiMn  which is, 

with regard to quality, identical or, at least, similar to those with  accreditation. 

13 

(39)  One  South  African  producer  further  argued  that  the  Commission  for  the  purpose  of 

examining  trends should  have considered  not only the period  1989 to the investigation  period 

but  also  the  year  1988  because  this  would  demonstrate  more  clearly  a  decreasing  trend  of 

import  volumes  from  South  Africa.  Furthermore,  this  exporter  argued  that,  given  that  the 

notice  of  initiation  of  the  proceeding  was  published  on  4  August  1993,  the  Commission 

should  have chosen  an  investigation  period closer to this opening  date rather  than  the  period 

1 April  1992 to 31 March  1993. Again, the exporter alleged that this would have shown more 

clearly  a decreasing trend of imports of the product originating in South  Africa. 

(40) 

It  is  common  practice  for  the  Community  institutions  to  examine  trends  of  imports 

volumes,  market  shares  and  prices  etc  over  a  period  of  several  years,  normally  four  years 

including  the  investigation  period.  In  the  present  case,  a  period  covering  the  investigation 

period  (1  April  1992  to  31  March  1993)  and  the  four  calendar  years  1989  to  1992  was 

chosen.  This  period  was  considered  appropriate  for  giving  an  objective  view  of  the 

development  of  the  market  situation  for  all  parties  concerned.  The  inclusion  of  information 

for  the  year  1988  would  not  result  in  any  different  conclusions  about  the  trends  of  import 

volumes etc. for cumulation  purposes. 

(41)  With  regard  to  the  selection  of  the  investigation  period,  it  should  be  noted  that  the 

Commission,  in  general,  aims  at  setting  the  investigation  period  close  to  the  date  of  the 

initiation  of  the  proceeding.  However,  other  considerations  sometimes  have  to be  taken  into 

account  in  order  to  ensure  that,  for  example,  the  submission,  verification  and  evaluation  of 

data can be carried  out promptly  and efficiently,  e.g. by establishing  correspondence  between 

the investigation  period  and  calendar  years or ..financial  quarters  or  semesters.  However,  if a 

party  concerned  considers  that  the  investigation  period  chosen  by  the  Commission  is  not 

appropriate,  it  has  to  submit  its  objections  at  the  earliest  opportunity,  which,  in  this  case, 

would  have been  after  reception  of the questionnaire  and not, as was the case here, only  after 

the  disclosure  of  the  provisional  findings.  In  fact,  the  exporter  in  question  responded  to  the 

questionnaire  on  the  basis  of  the  investigation  period  indicated,  which  corresponds  to  its 

financial  year,  without  any  objection  nor  were  any  objections  to  the  investigation  period 

raised, during the on-spot verification  of the data submitted. 

14 

2. Material  injury 

(42) 

Several  exporters  have  alleged  that  the  Community  industry  did  not  suffer  from 

material  injury.  They  have  pointed  out  that  financial  losses  suffered  by  the  EU  producers 

were  the  only  identifiable  indicator  of  injury,  whereas  the  EU  production  and  sales  of 

FeSiMn  increased,  production  capacity  remained  constant  and capacity  utilisation  increased. 

It was claimed,  furthermore,  that  the decline  in employment  was not  an appropriate  indicator 

of injury, because it resulted  in an increase in productivity. 

(43) 

The  Commission's  findings  with  regard  to  production,  sales,  market  share  and 

financial  results  make  clear  that  the  Community  producers,  in  order  to  limit  the  damage 

being  caused  by  the  dumped  imports,  pursued  the  strategy  of  reacting  to  the  downward 

pressure  on  sales  prices  caused  by  these  imports  by  following  the  price  trend  in  order  to 

maintain their market share. Although this aim was not completely  fulfilled  (the market  share 

fell  from  1989 to the investigation  period  by  1.2  %),  production  and  sales  volume  increased 

and  capacity  utilisation  remained  more  or  less  stable.  In  consequence,  however,  the 

Community  industry  has incurred  heavy  financial  losses which  have put  its existence  at risk. 

The negative development  in the financial  situation of the Community  industry  is considered 

a major  indicator of material  injury. 

(44)  One  exporter  argued  that  the  Community  industry's  profit  rate  in  1989  (16.9  %  on 

turnover)  is,  compared  to  the  financial  results  of  nine  metal  related  manufacturing  U.S. 

industries  for  the  period  1987  to  1992  (allegedly  ranging  beween  7.9  %  profit  and  8.5  % 

loss),  so  extraordinarily  high  that  it  was  likely  to  be  based  on  unreliable  financial  reports 

from  the EU-producers. The losses incurred  by the Community  industry  in the years  1990 to 

the  investigation  period  were  also  questioned  by  this  exporter,  as  was  the  reliability  of  the 

cost  allocation  methods  applied  by  the  Community  producers.  Both  arguments  were, 

however, not further  substantiated. 

15 

(45) 

It  is  considered  that  the  comparison  between  the  financial  results  of  a  specific 

industry  (here:  the  FeSiMn  industry)  and  a  variety  of  different  industries  does  not  compare 

like  with  like  and  does  not,  in  general,  provide  a basis  for  drawing  a  fair  picture  about  the 

financial  situation  of the EU FeSiMn  industry.  Secondly,  the investigation  has  not  given  any 

reason  to assume that the financial  results, based on audited  accounts, were  incorrect: It was, 

furthermore,  established  that  the  allocation  methods  applied  by  the  EU  producers  were 

appropriate. 

(46)  One  exporter  claimed  that  the  loss  in  market  share  suffered  by  the  Community 

industry  had  only  occurred  for  particular  qualities,  i.e.  so-called  medium  carbon  and  low 

carbon  FeSiMn,  whereas  the  market  share  for  standard  FeSiMn,  on  which  the  Commission 

has  based  the  price  comparisons  both  for  provisional  and  definitive  determinations,  had 

increased by 0.5 %. 

(47) 

In  this  respect,  it  must  be  pointed  out  that  the  market  share  data  submitted  in  this 

context  are  incorrect  because  the  market  shares  for  the  respective  product  qualities  are 

expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  total  consumption  on  the  EU  market  for  all  quality  types 

taken  together  and  not  separately  on  the  consumption  for  the  respective  qualities.  The  data 

submitted  gives, therefore,  an incorrect  picture  of the trend of market  shares  for  the  different 

qualities mentioned above. 

(48) 
In conclusion,  it is definitively  determined  that  the Community  industry  has  suffered 
material  injury,  given  its  deteriorating  financial  situation  characterized  by  increasing  losses 
over the years  1989 to the investigation  period. 

16 

F.  CAUSATION 

1. Effect  of the dumped  imports 

(49)  The  Commission^  at  recital  57  of  the  provisional  duty  Regulation  reached  a 

preliminary  determination  that  imports  originating  in  Russia,  Ukraine,  Brazil  and  South 

Africa  had, taken together, caused material  injury  to the Community  industry. 

2. Other  factors 

Raw material prices  and general demand from  the steel industry 

(50)  One exporter  claimed  that  the  significant  increase  of  manganese  supply  over  several 
years,  demonstrated  by  publications  of  the  U.S.  Bureau  of  Mines,  causing  a  fall  in 

manganese ore prices by 5 to  10 % per  annum between  1989 and  1993, together  with,  in the 

same period,  the  decrease  in demand  from  the  steel  industry  caused  the  price  decline  on the 

world  markets,  and  therefore  also  accounted  for  the  fall  in  prices  on  the  EU  market  for 

FeSiMn. 

(51) In this respect, it is considered  that decreasing prices for manganese ore, which  accounts 

only  for  10 to  15  % of  the  total  cost  of  manufacture  of  FeSiMn,  cannot  explain  the  more 

substantial  price  decreases  for  the  end  product  over  the  period  in  question.  Secondly,  it  has 

been  established  that the total consumption  of,  and therefore  the demand  for,  FeSiMn  in the 

Community  had increased in the period  1989 to the investigation period by around 21 %. 

17 

Norway 

(52) 

Producers  from  Brazil,  South  Africa  and  Ukraine  as  well  as  one  association  of  the 

user  industry  considered  that  the  injury  caused  to the Community  industry  resulted  from  the 

imports  of  ferro-silico-manganese  of  Norwegian  origin  and  not  from  imports  from  the 

exporting  countries concerned.  More specifically,  it was argued that the Community  industry 

suffered  its  most  significant  decrease  in  profitability  from  1989  (profit:  16.9  %)  to  1990 

(loss:  14.9  %),  i.e.  in  a  period  where  imports  from  the  exporting  countries  concerned 

increased  by  8000  tonnes  only.  In  the  same  period  (1989  -  1990),  it  was  claimed  that 

Community  producers' prices on the EU market  fell  by 27  %, Norwegian  prices  fell  by 21 % 

but the prices of the product  from  the exporting  countries  concerned  declined  by only  17 %. 

Furthermore, it was pointed out that  in  1990 Norwegian  prices on the market of one  member 

state decreased by as much as 24 %. 

(53) 

It  should  be  noted  in  this  context  that  with  regard  to  imports  of  FeSiMn  from 

Norway,  the  market  share  decreased  from  41.4  %  in  1989  to  30.8  %  in  the  investigation 

period  and  that  the  average  import  prices  on  the  EU  market  for  ferro-silico-manganese  of 

Norwegian  origin  (according  to  Eurostat)  in  the  investigation  period  and  the  calendar  years 

1989  -  1992  were  always  higher  than  the  prices  of  the  other  exporting  countries  and  the 

Community  industry.  This  situation  was  also  reflected  in  1989/1990,  when  imports  from 

Norway  decreased  from  171887  tonnes  (market  share:  41.4  %)  to  139928  tonnes  (market 

share:  34.4  %).  Although  the  average  Norwegian  prices  (according  to Eurostat)  declined  by 

21 %, they were still  around  17 % (or more  than  80 ECU)  higher than  the weighted  average 

prices of the exporters under  consideration. 

(54)  Under  these circumstances,  it  is considered  that  imports  from  Norway  were  unlikely 

to  be  responsible  for  the  injury  suffered  by  the  Community  producers.  Therefore,  these 

arguments and claims have to be  rejected. 

18 

Competitiveness of Community producers 

(55)  The  two  Brazilian  producers  which  cooperated  in  the  proceeding  claimed  that  the 

injury  suffered  by the Community  industry  was  caused  by  its  lack  of  competitiveness.  They 

argued that, even in  1990 when, allegedly, Community  prices were around  12 % above world 

level, the EU producers reported the first  financial  losses. The argument  is accompanied  by a 

price  comparison  for  ferro-silico-manganese  between  the  EU  and  the  U.S.A.  for  the  years 

1989  to  1992.  They  suggested,  moreover,  that  the  alleged  inefficiency  would  also  be 

indicated  by  the  Community  producers'  low  labour  productivity,  defined  as  average  output 

per  employee,  when  compared  to  non-EU  ferro-silico-manganese  producers,  and  submitted 

an estimate based on data in the complaint, on statistical data in the U.S.A. and  "interviews". 

(56) 

In this context,  it should  be  noted  that  the price comparison  between  the  EU  and  the 

U.S.A. does not take account  of  the result  of  the anti-dumping  proceeding  carried  out by the 

U.S.  authorities.  This  proceeding  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the  U.S.  market  was  also 

influenced  by injuriously  dumped  imports from  several countries. It appears likely,  therefore, 

that the market prices in the U.S.A. were distorted by unfair  practices. 

(57)  With  regard  to  the  Community  industry's  alleged  low  productivity,  it  is  pointed  out 

that  even  if  certain  exporters  enjoy  competitive  advantages  which  are  not  enjoyed  by  the 

Community  producers,  leading  to  higher  production  costs  for  the  latter,  this  would  not  be a 

justification  for  refraining  from  the  adoption  of  remedial  measures  in  cases  where  injury 

caused  through  the  effects  of  dumping  has  been  established.  What  is  relevant  in  these 

circumstances  is to ensure  that  any  injury  caused  by a lack  of  competitiveness  has  not  been 

attributed  to the dumped  imports. This  has been  done in this case. Furthermore,  it  should  be 

stressed that the anti-dumping  measures  have been limited  to the dumping  margin  and not to 

the higher injury  elimination  margin. 

19 

Conclusion 

(58)  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," even  if 

other  factors  have  contributed  to  the  injury  suffered  by  the  Community  industry,  the  high 

volume,  low-priced  dumped  imports  of  FeSiMn  originating  in  Russia,  Ukraine,  Brazil  and 

South  Africa  have,  taken  in  isolation,  caused  material  injury  to  the  Community  industry, 

particularly in the form of heavy  financial  losses. 

G. COMMUNITY  INTEREST 

Steel industry 

(59)  One  association  of  the  user  industry  and  an  unrelated  importer  have  submitted  that 

the  Commission  should  take  into  account  the  interests  of  the EU  steel  producers  as users of 

FeSiMn  and  have  pointed  out  that  the  imposition  of  anti-dumping  duties  on  imports  of 

FeSiMn  would  increase  the  production  costs  of  the  steel  manufacturers  and  damage  their 

international  competitiveness.  The  same  association  has  claimed  that  one  company  has 

estimated that FeSiMn represents  6% of its conversion costs for steel. 

(60) 

The  Commission  has  established  during  the  proceeding  that  FeSiMn  in  general 

accounts  for  only  1 % of the total production  costs of steel. The abovementioned  submission 

does  not  indicate  the impact  of  the cost  of  FeSiMn  on the total  steel  production-costs,  since 

the  conversion  costs  constitute  only  a  part  of  the  total  production  costs.  In  addition,  the 

submission  does  not make clear  whether  this  argument  is based  on the  situation  of  the  steel 

industry  as a whole, or only particular branches of it (e.g. so called mini-mills). 

20 

Anti-dumping  duties and competition 

(61) 

Several  exporters  claim  that  the  imposition  of  anti-dumping  duties  would  eliminate 

the  exporters  concerned  from  the  EU  market  but  would  not  raise  the  EU  market  prices  to a 

level  such  that  the  Community  industry  would  become  profitable  again.  Thus,  they  argue 

only  the  Norwegian  exporters  would  benefit  and  would  be  in  a  position  to  reinforce  their 

"dominant  position".  One  exporter  concerned  has  alleged  that  anti-dumping  duties  would 

only serve to support the largest Norwegian exporter which, it was alleged, already  has a 

-  "dominant  position"  -  on  the  EU  market  because  it  holds  6  %  of  COMILOG's  shares,  a 

Gabon based company  which has large shareholdings  in a number of Community  producers. 

(62)  With  respect  to these  arguments  and claims, it  should  be  stressed,  firstly,  that 

it is fundamentally  in the general  interest  of  the Community  to eliminate  the  trade  distorting 

effects  of  injurious  dumping  and  to  restore  effective  competition.  It  is  considered  that 

measures  would,  neither  as  a  matter  of  general  principle  nor  in  relation  to  the  particular 

circumstances  of  this  proceeding,  not  necessarily  lead  to  the  exclusion  from  the  EU  market 

of  imports  from  the  countries  concerned.  It  is  considered,  furthermore,  that  restoring  fair 

market  conditions  would  lead  to  the  Community  industry  regaining  their  viability  and 

continuing  to  be  an  active  player  on  the  market.  The  imposition  of  anti-dumping  duties 

would not, therefore,  impede competition on the EU market. 

Nor  would  the  imposition  of  duties  result  in  a  dominant  position  for  the  Norwegian 

exporters. It has been  alleged that the largest  Norwegian  exporter  has a dominant  position  on 

the  EU  market  because  of  its  share  holding  in  COMILOG.  Firstly,  it  is  highly  improbable 

that  the  Norwegian  company  concerned  could,  through  the  low  level  of  its  share  holding, 

control  COMILOG  and  hence the EU  market.  What  is more  important  is the  fact  that,  if  the 

Norwegian exporter controlled COMILOG its sales volume and market share trends would at 

least  be  similar  to those of  the Community  producers  linked  to COMILOG.  On  the  contrary 

the  data  available  show  that  trends  in  sales  volume  and  market  shares  were  substantially 

more negative for the Norwegian exporter than for the EU producers related  to COMILOG. 

The  measures  in  question  will  not  reduce  competition  in  the  EU  market  because  it  will  be 
supplied  at  fair  prices  not  only  by  the  complainant  Community  producers,  the  Norwegian 
exporters  and  the  exporters  subject  to  the  investigation,  but  also  from  non-cooperating  EU 
producers  and  exporters  other  than  those  in  Norway,  not  subject  to  anti-dumping  measures 
(which  taken  together  accounted  in  the  investigation  period  for  more  than  15%-  of  the 
Community  consumption  of FeSiMn). 
These arguments and claims have therefore  to be rejected. 

Substitution of FeSiMn by other ferro  alloys 

(63)  One  exporter  argued  that,  from  1989  to  the  investigation  period,  the  production 

output  of  the  EU  steel  industry,  the  almost  exclusive  user  of  FeSiMn,  fell  by  nearly  6  %, 

whereas  the  Commission  had  established  that  consumption  of  FeSiMn  on  the  EU  market  in 

the  same  period  increased  by  21.4  %.  The  exporter  claims  that  it  would  have  important 

implications  for  the  determination  concerning  Community  interest,  if  this  situation  was  due 

to  a  substitution  of  ferro-silico  (FeSi)  and  ferro-manganese  (FeMn)  by  FeSiMn  because  a 

substitution  could  take  place,  in  the  opposite  direction,  after  imposition  of  anti-dumping 

duties on FeSiMn which would prevent any remedial effects  of the measures. 

(64) 

In  the  light  of  the  Commission's  findings  during  the  investigation,  it  appears  that  a 

substitution  of  FeSi  and  FeMn,  as indicated  above,  has  probably  taken  place. This  does  not 

however  alter  the  fact  that  injurious  dumping  has  occurred  against  which  the  Community 

industry  has  a legitimate  right  to be protected.  The  aim of  such  protection  in the  framework 

of an anti-dumping  proceeding  is to restore  fair  market  conditions. It should  also be  recalled 

that anti-dumping  measures have been in force  for some time against certain imports of FeSi, 

which  may  have  been  a  factor  in  the  substitution  of  FeSi  by  FeSiMn.  The  imposition  of 

duties  on  FeSiMn  is,  however,  less  likely  to  result  in  substitution  in  the  opposite  direction 

because duties on FeSi remain in force. 

22 

Conclusion 

(65) 

In the  light  of  the  above,  the  preliminary  determination  reached  at  Recital  63  of  the 

provisional  duty  Regulation,  that  it  is  in  the  Community  interest  to  adopt  anti-dumping 

measures, is  confirmed. 

H. UNDERTAKINGS 

(66)  The  Commission  received  offers  of  undertakings  from  the  Ukrainian  authorities  in 

conjunction  with  the  Ukrainian  exporters  and  from  the  Brazilian  and  South  African 

exporters. These offers  have been examined  carefully,  with  particular  attention  being paid to 

the feasibility  of monitoring  the undertakings  proposed.  In this  latter respect, the  Community 

Institutions  have,  in  general,  certain  reservations  as  regards  the  acceptance  of  undertakings 

concerning  ferro-alloy  products  of  this  kind  given  the  possibilities  for  circumvention 

resulting  from  the  fungibility  of  the  products  and  from  the  existence  of  various  qualities 

which  command  different  prices.  However,  in  view  of  the  limited  number  of  producing 

exporters  involved  in this case, and  the  nature of the marketing  channels  in the  Community, 

the  Commission  has  accepted  the  undertakings  offered  by  the  Ukrainian  Authorities  in 

conjunction  with  the  Ukrainian  exporters  and  by  the  South  African  exporters  (see 

Commission  Decision  95/.../EC^)  since  such  undertakings  would  eliminate  the  injurious 

effects  of  dumping  pursuant  to  Article  10(2)  of  the  Basic  Regulation  and  could  in  the 

Commission's view be satisfactorily  monitored. 

With  regard  to Brazil,  the  Commission  has  decided  not  to  accept  the  undertakings  from  the 

Brazilian  exporters  because  the  minimum  prices  they  have  offered  were  not  sufficient  to 

remove 

injurious  dumping.  The  Commission  has 

informed 

the  Brazilian  exporters 

accordingly. 

Given  the  above,  the  Council  concludes  that  measures  should  be  imposed  on  imports  of 

FeSiMn originating  in Brazil in the form  of an anti-dumping  duty. 

7  See page ... of this Official  Journal 

23 

Notwithstanding  the  acceptance  of  the  undertakings  from  the  Ukrainian  Authorities  in 

conjunction  with  the  Ukrainian  producers  and  from  the  South  African  exporters,  a  residual 

duty  should  be  imposed  on  imports  of  FeSiMn  originating  in  Ukraine  and  South  Africa  in 

order to underpin  the undertakings and avoid their circumvention. 

I. DUTY 

(67) 

Provisional  measures  took  the  form  of  ad-valorem  anti-dumping  duties;  these  were 

imposed  at the level  of the dumping  margins  found,  except  for  one  South  African  producer, 

for  which  the  duty  was  imposed  at  the  level  of  the  injury  margin  which  was  lower  than  the 

dumping  margin.  The  definitive  findings  indicate  that  the  amended  dumping  margins  are 

lower  in  all cases than  the injury  margins, which  in the absence  of  any comments  following 

the imposition  of provisional  measures are confirmed.  Consequently, definitive  duties  should 

be imposed on imports in the EU of FeSiMn originating  in Russia, Ukraine, Brazil and South 
Africa  at the level of the dumping margins pursuant to Article  13 (3) of the Basic  Regulation. 

The  duties  should  not  apply  to  imports  of  FeSiMn  produced  and  exported  to  the  EU  by  the 

Ukrainian  and South African  exporters from  which price undertakings have been  accepted. 

In  the  case  of  Brazilian  and  South  African  firms  which  failed  to  cooperate  in  the 

investigation  or otherwise  make themselves  known, the findings  reached  at Recital  71 of the 

provisional  duty  Regulation  are,  in  the  absence  of  any  new  evidence  or  arguments, 

confirmed.  Accordingly, for Brazil, the duty for  non-cooperators  should be at the level of the 

dumping  margin established  for  the two cooperating  related  exporters  and,  for  South  Africa, 

at  the  level  of  the  higher  of  the  two  dumping  margins  established  for  the  two  cooperating 

exporters. 

24 

Since  imports  of  FeSiMn  originating  in  Georgia  were  found  to  be  de  minimis  and 
(68) 
therefore  considered  not  to  have caused  injury  to the Community  industry,  the  Commission 
considered  it  appropriate  to  terminate  the  proceeding  in  this  respect  (see  Commission 
Decision  95/...8). 

J. COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL  DUTIES 

(69) 

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

industry  and  of  the  latter's  precarious  situation,  it  is  considered  necessary  that  the  amounts 

secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  for  all  countries  and  companies 

involved  should  be  collected  definitively  at  the  levels  of  the  dumping  margins  definitively 

established. 

See page 

of this Official  Journal 

25 

HAS ADOPTED THIS  REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

A definitive  anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of  ferro-silico-

manganese falling  within CN code 7202 30 00 and originating  in Russia,  Ukraine, 

Brazil  and South  Africa. 

2. 

The rate of the duty applicable to the net-ffee-at-Community-frontier  price, not 

cleared through customs, shall be: 

- 54,2 % 

- 43.9 % 

- 36,1% 

- 48,3% 

for ferro-silico-manganese  originating  in Russia, 

for ferro-silico-manganese  originating  in Ukraine, 

for ferro-silico-manganese  originating  in Brazil. 

for ferro-silico-manganese  originating in South Africa  (Taric 
additional code: 8818) 

3. 

Unless otherwise specified,  the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall 

apply. 

4. 

The duties shall not apply to imports of the product defined  in paragraph  1, 

produced  and exported to the Community by the following  companies  from 

which price undertakings have been  accepted: 

Ukraine 

Nikopol Ferro Alloy Plant 

Zaporozhye Ferroy Alloy Plant 

South Africa 

Highveld  Steel & Vanadium Corporation  Limited 
Samancor Limited 

26 

Article 2 

The amounts  secured  by way of the provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on imports  of  ferro-silico-

manganese  originating  in Russia,  Ukraine, Brazil  and  South  Africa  pursuant  to  Commission 

Regulation  (EC)  No  3119/94  shall  be  definitively  collected  at  the  duty  rate  definitively 

imposed, except  for  imports  originating  in South  Africa  and exported  by  Highveld  Steel  and 

Vanadium Corporation  Limited  for which a rate of 45.3% shall apply. 

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 

The President 

27 

ISSN  0254-1475 

COM(95) 393  final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

02  11 

Catalogue number  : CB-CO-95-417-EN-C 

ISBN 92-77-92393-8 

Office  for Official  Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg 

T?