Commission Regulation (EC) No 1742/98 of 5 August 1998 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of hardboard originating in Brazil, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Russia and accepting undertakings offered from certain exporters in connection with those exports
Date: 1998-08-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Brazil, Central and Eastern Europe, anti-dumping duty, building slab, import, wood fibre

L 218/16

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

6. 8. 98

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1742/98

of 5 August 1998

imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of hardboard originating
in Brazil, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Russia and accepting
undertakings offered from certain exporters in connection with those exports

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

(3)

(4)

(5)

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of
22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports
from countries not members of the European Commun-
ity (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 905/98 (2),
and in particular Articles 7 and 8 thereof,

After consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

A. PROCEDURE

(1)

7 November

On
the Commission
1997,
announced, by a notice (hereinafter referred to as
‘Notice of Initiation’) published in the Official
Journal of the European Communities (3), the initi-
ation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to
imports into the Community of hardboard origin-
ating in Brazil, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland and Russia.

The proceeding was initiated as a result of a
lodged by the following Community
complaint
producers: Atex Werke GmbH & Co., Funder
Industrie GmbH, Hornitex Werk GmbH, Isoroy
SA, Silva Srl, Suomen Kuitulevy OY, Swanboard
AB and Techboard Ltd. These producers repres-
the Community
ented a major proportion of
production of hardboard. The complaint contained
evidence of dumping of the said product and of
material
injury resulting therefrom, which was
considered sufficient, after consultation, to justify
the initiation of a proceeding.

(2)

The Commission officially advised the complainant
Community producers, exporting producers and
importers known to be concerned, the represent-
atives of the exporting countries as well as Com-
munity users and suppliers of the initiation of the
proceeding. The parties directly concerned were
given the opportunity to make their views known

(1) OJ L 56, 6. 3. 1996, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 128, 30. 4. 1998, p. 18.
(3) OJ C 336, 7. 11. 1997, p. 2.

in writing and to request a hearing within the time
limit set in the Notice of Initiation.

A number of exporting producers in the countries
concerned, as well as complainant Community
producers, Community users and importers made
their views known in writing. All parties who so
requested within the above time limit and in-
dicated that there were particular reasons why they
should be heard, were granted a hearing.

The Commission sent questionnaires to all parties
known to be concerned and received replies from
five
two
complaining Community producers,
companies in Brazil, an importer which was related
to one of the Brazilian companies, two companies
in Bulgaria, one company in Estonia, one company
in Latvia as well as a related company located in
Latvia, one company in Lithuania, six companies in
Poland, and one company in Russia. The Commis-
sion also received meaningful and complete replies
from six unrelated importers in the Community.

The Commission sought and verified all the in-
formation it deemed necessary for the purpose of a
preliminary determination of dumping, resulting
injury and Community interest, and carried out
verifications at
the following
the premises of
companies:

(a) Complainant Community producers

Germany:

— ATEX Werke GmbH & Co., Grafenau;

France:

— Tarnaise des Panneaux SA (Groupe Isoroy

SA), Castres,

— Saborec SA (Groupe Isoroy SA), Strasbourg;

Italy:

— Silva Srl, S. Michele Mondovi;

Finland:

— Suomen Kuitulevy OY (Finnish Fibreboard

Ltd), Heinola;

United Kingdom:

— Techboard Ltd, Ebbw Vale.

(b) Exporting producers

Brazil:

— Duratex SA, S˜ao Paulo,
— Eucatex SA, S˜ao Paulo;

6. 8. 98

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 218/17

Bulgaria:

— Fazerles AD, Silistra,

— Lessoplast AD, Trojan;

Estonia:

— AS Repo Vabrikud, P(cid:129)ssi;

Latvia:

— AS ‘Bolder(cid:131)ja’, Riga,

— AS ‘Gr(cid:140)va-B’, Riga (company related to AS

Bolder(cid:131)ja);

Lithuania:

— JSC Grigiskes, Grigiskes;

Poland:

— Alpex-Karlino SA, Karlino,

— Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych w Czarnej Wodjie,

(9)

Czarna Woda,

— Ekoplyta SA, Czarnkow,

— Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych SA w Przemyslu,

Przemys,

— Koniecpolskie Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych SA,

Koniecpol,

— Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych SA w Krosnie

Odrzanskim, Krosno Odrzanskie.

(c) Importers

— Duratex Europe GmbH (related to Duratex

SA),

— Lord Forest Products Ltd, United Kingdom.

(10)

The investigation of dumping covered the period 1
October 1996 to 30 September 1997 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The
examination of injury covered the period 1 January
1993 up to the end of the investigation period.

B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND
LIKE PRODUCT

1. Product under consideration

production process, one characteristic of hardboard
is that in its unworked state the underside of it will
have an impression of the woven mesh on which
the wood-fibre mattress lay upon entry into the
press. In a worked state, this rough surface may be
removed in further sanding or finishing processes.
The upper surface will correspond to the surface of
the press-plate, and is typically smooth.

Hardboard normally has a density of 0,85 to 1,05
g/cm3 and is made in thicknesses between 1,8 to
6,0 mm.

Hardboard is typically used for furniture, in the
construction and automotive industries, for door-
skins and for packaging, especially fruit and ve-
getable packaging.

fibreboards

A number of importers and users requested that
the proceeding should be
the product scope of
extended to dry-process
such as
medium and high density fibreboard (MDF/HDF),
chipboard and plywood because, according to
them, hardboard and these other products together
form a single product. It was therefore alleged that
the analysis of dumping, resultant
the scope of
injury and Community interest should also include
all these products. In this respect, the following
findings were made.

(a) Medium and high density fibrebaord (here-

inafter referred to as ‘MDF/HDF’)

for inclusion of MDF/HDF in the
The request
scope of the proceeding was based on the grounds
that these products can also be made with densities
exceeding 0,8 g/cm3, and that they appear to be
similar to hardboard due to their general physical
characteristics and uses.

However,
there are
the Commission found that
important differences between hardboard and
MDF/HDF:

(i) Production
physical
uses

process

resulting
and chemical characteristics,

and

The product under consideration in this anti-
dumping proceeding is hardboard. Hardboard is
defined as fibreboard of wood or other ligneous
materials, whether or not bonded with resins or
other organic substances and with a density ex-
ceeding 0,8 g/cm3, currently classifiable under CN
codes ex 4411 11 00 and ex 4411 19 00.

Hardboard is exclusively obtained from a ‘wet
production process’ (as opposed to the dry-process
fibreboards described below). Due to the wet

(11) MDF/HDF is obtained from a ‘dry production
process’ as opposed to the ‘wet production process’
used in the production of hardboard. Although the
production process as such is not a determinant
factor in the establishment of the scope of the
investigation,
the different production processes
above result in different physical characteristics as
in the dry production process both surfaces of the
MDF/HDF fibreboard emerge from the presses
with the appearance of the pressing plates used;
typically both surfaces will be smooth.

(6)

(7)

(8)

L 218/18

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

6. 8. 98

(12)

Furthermore, the different production process of
MDF/HDF, as compared with that of hardboard,
results in different physical and mechanical proper-
ties of MDF/HDF as compared with hardboard.
important chemical difference stems
The most
from the requirements to add resins to the dry
production process.

Furthermore, dry-process fibreboards tend to be
more brittle than hardboards of similar thickness.
The extra suppleness of hardboard is an important
factor in those uses where the board needs to be
moulded into the correct shape, such as in the
automobile and caravan industry.

In the dry-process, additional
thermal-hardening
resins have to be added to the dried wood fibres in
order to assist the bonding process in the press. By
contrast, resins tend not to be added to the wet-
process wood fibres in order to make hardboard
since they would wash away with the water in the
press. The maximum amount of resins that can be
retained in wet-process hardboard does not exceed
one-tenth of the typical resin content of a standard
MDF fibreboard, which consists of roughly 13 %
resins. It is clear therefore, that there are important
chemical differences between hardboard and fibre-
board.

(13) Also, hardboard typically has a density of 0,85 to
1,05 g/cm3 whereas most MDF/HDF is less than
0,80 g/cm3 even if the HDF variant of the fibre-
board family has, like hardboard, a density exceed-
ing 0,80 g/cm3. Despite this similarity between
the latter is quite distinct
hardboard and HDF,
from hardboard, not only for the chemical reasons
common to all dry-process fibreboards as explained
above, but also due to differences in physical
characteristics, such as the average thickness of
HDF panels, which affect the end-uses to which it
is put, as explained below.

Hardboard is made in thicknesses between 1,8 to
6,0 mm, while the vast majority of HDF/MDF
fibreboard has a thickness exceeding 7 to 8 mm,
to make
although it
MDF/HDF with thicknesses down to 1,8 mm.

technically possible

is

Dry-process fibreboard is therefore only in part
interchangeable with hardboard, and only for the
thin type, i.e. with a thickness lower than 6 mm.
The main uses of hardboard are in door-skins,
furniture (such as cupboard backs, drawer bottoms
and divan frames), picture frames, fruit and vege-
table containers and in the automobile industry. As
far as the uses of thin MDF are concerned, there is
some overlap with those of hardboard, i.e. mainly
in the area of backs of
furniture and drawer
bottoms and picture frames. However, hardboard is
not used for the main application of HDF, i.e. as a
base for
floor underlaying
(parquet).

finished boards

for

(ii) Development of consumption

(15)

The lack of interchangeability between hardboard
on the one hand and MDF/HDF of the other hand
is demonstrated by the fact that despite the strong
growth of
the dry-process MDF/HDF in recent
years, this has not occurred at the expense of the
hardboard sector. Consumption of hardboard
increased by 20 % since 1993.

(iii) Conclusion

(16) On the basis of the above,

it is concluded that
hardboard and MDF/HDF are not considered to be
a single product for the purpose of this investiga-
tion.

(b) Plywood

(17)

(14)

The nature of the production processes means that
raw hardboard will have one smooth surface and
one rough surface with a mesh pattern, while raw
MDF/HDF will have two smooth surfaces in their
unworked states. These differences have certain
implications for the end use to which the boards
can be put. For example, the fruit-packing trade
favours the use of hardboard not only because the
rough surface enables easier stacking of fruit boxes
without the stacks slipping around while in transit,
but also because most
thin MDF boards emit
formaldehyde at levels which are not considered
appropriate for the packaging of foodstuffs.

Like MDF/HDF, plywood belongs to the family of
wood-based panels, and is made of wood-based
plies which are bonded together. It is situated at
the top of the market in terms of both quality and
price. In view of the fact that plywood consists of
wood-based plies which are bonded together, this is
not a fibre-based board, and its physical characteris-
tics differ strongly from hardboard. Although it
may be employed in some of the end-uses where
hardboard is also used and is interchangeable in
the different
those cases,
physical characteristics, be considered to be a single
product together with hardboard and therefore was
not included in the investigation.

in view of

it cannot,

6. 8. 98

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 218/19

(c) Chipboard

cipated in the complaint which led to the initiation
of this proceeding.

(18)

(19)

together with a

Like MDF/HDF, chipboard belongs to the family
of wood-based panels. It is made from wood-chips
bonded
thermal-
hardening resin under a press. The wood chips are
only chopped, not defibrated, and the resulting
boards are not as supple nor do they have the
bending strength of hardboard. Their
surface
quality is not comparable with hardboard either.

synthetic

Although some limited end-uses of chipboard may
coincide with those of hardboard, such as backing
boards in some furniture, hardboard and chipboard
do not form a single product in view of their dif-
ferent physical characteristics.

2. Like product

The Commission found that there were no differ-
ences in the basic characteristics and uses of the
hardboard imported into the Community from the
countries concerned and the hardboard produced
by the Community industry and sold on the
Community market. The same is true with regard
to hardboard produced and sold on the domestic
markets of Brazil, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithu-
ania and Poland (the latter
served also as an
analogue country for imports from Russia). It was
therefore
concluded that both the hardboard
produced and sold by the Community industry on
the Community market
the hardboard
produced and sold on the domestic markets of
Brazil, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and
Poland were, within the meaning of Article 1(4) of
Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (hereafter referred to as
the ‘Basic Regulation’), alike to the hardboard
imported into the Community from the six coun-
tries subject to investigation.

and

(20)

The Brazilian exporters, as well as a number of
users of hardboard, in particular manufacturers of
door-skins, claimed that Brazilian hardboard, which
is exclusively made with eucalyptus wood, a type of
hardwood, is not a like product with the product
produced by the Community industry and should
be excluded from the scope of the investigation.

(21)

The Commission’s analysis showed that hardboard
can be made of softwood or hardwood species of
wood, or of a mixture of both. Hardwood species
tend to give rise to tougher boards. The investiga-
tion found that hardboard made from eucalyptus
wood has a number of particularities as compared
to other hardboards. First, its especially short fibres
give the finished hardboard a very regular appear-
ance, high density and stronger tensile properties
than non-eucalyptus hardboard. The eucalyptus
tree has hardly any bark, a factor which ensures
that blemished in the pressed board are kept a
minimum.

finished doors. It

These characteristics make eucalyptus hardboard
well suited to end-uses requiring a smooth, regular
and blemish-free surface aspect. The main use is as
door-skins for high-quality,
is
recognised in the wood-panels industry that eu-
calyptus hardboard has the characteristics appro-
priate for the production of these higher-quality
lacquered door-skins. For unfinished doors, which
pre-painted in white but which require finishing by
the final customer, door-skins made with different
types of wood are used.

Moreover, during the investigation period, euca-
lyptus hardboard was used to a minor extent for
certain applications in the automobile industry and,
as far as off-cuts of hardboard sheets corresponding
to the full size of the press plate are concerned, for
fruit and vegetable containers.

(22) Although eucalyptus hardboard is currently used in
the production of lacquered door-skins, its proper-
ties do not technically rule out its use in any areas
in which other hardboards are also used as the
basic chemical and physical characteristics of hard-
board made from eucalyptus are similar to those of
hardboard made of other types of wood; indeed,
information available to the Commission (see
recital 107) shows that two-thirds of imports into
the Community of eucalyptus hardboard from
Brazil compete with sectors other than lacquered
door-skins.

Among the exporting producers concerned by this
investigation, only the Brazilian exporters supply
hardboard made from eucalyptus to the Com-
as Community production is
munity. As
concerned, there are two producers of eucalyptus
hardboard in the Community, both situated on the
Iberian peninsula, although neither of them parti-

far

(23)

follows

from the above that

It
the hardboard
produced by the Community industry and the
eucalyptus hardboard produced and exported by
to a significant
Brazilian exporting producers,
extent, share the same basic physical characteristics
and uses
and are therefore alike within the
meaning of Article 1(4) of the Basic Regulation.

L 218/20

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

6. 8. 98

C. DUMPING

(iii) Type specific representativeness

1. General methodology

(24)

section explains

This
the general methodology
used to establish whether the imports into the
investigation
Community of
have been dumped. Specific issues raised by the
investigation for
each country concerned are
described in Section 2.

the product under

(a) Normal value

(25) Normal value has been establised for every ex-
the methodology
following
porting producer
described in this section, with the exception of
Russia for which, according to Article 2(7) of the
Basic Regulation, normal value had to be es-
tablished by reference to a market economy third
country. The methodology used in the case of
Russia is described in recital 71.

(i) Representativeness

(26)

In accordance with Article 2(2) of the Basic Regula-
tion, the Commission first examined whether the
domestic sales of hardboard by each exporting
producer were representative. This was the case
when the total volume of such sales was equal to or
higher than 5 % of the total volume of the res-
pective export sales to the Community.

(ii) Type comparability

(27) Due to the different types of the product in ques-
countries
tion,
concerned was classified according to the following
characteristics:

hardboard

produced

the

in

— whether

the hardboard was unworked (i.e.
standard raw hardboard or hardboard with dif-
ferent basic treatments like sanded, perforated
etc.) or worked (i.e. hardboard that has been
lacquered, painted, printed, etc.),

— thickness, and

(28) Domestic sales of a particular type were considered
as sufficiently representative when the volume of
hardboard of that type sold on the domestic market
during the IP represented 5 % or more of
the
volume of hardboard of the comparable type sold
for export to the Community.

(iv) Ordinary course of trade test

(29)

The Commission subsequently examined whether
the domestic sales of each type exported could be
considered as being made in the ordinary course of
trade, by establishing the proportion of profitable
domestic sales of the comparable type:

(a) In cases where the volume in m2 of a type of
hardboard sold at a net sales price equal to or
above the calculated cost of production rep-
resented more than 80 % of
the total sales
volume in m2, normal value of this type of
hardboard was based on the actual domestic
price, calculated as a weighted average of the
prices of all domestic sales transactions during
the investigation period, whether profitable or
not.

(b) In cases where the volume in m2 of a type of
hardboard sold at a net sales price equal to, or
above, the calculated cost or production rep-
resented 80 %, or less, but equal to, or more,
than 10 % of the total sales volume in m2,
normal value of
this type of hardboard was
based on the weighted average price of profi-
table domestic sales only.

(c) In cases where the volume in m2 of a type of
hardboard sold at a net sales price equal to or
above the calculated cost of production rep-
resented less
sales
than 10 % of
volume in m2, it was considered that the type of
hardboard was not sold in the ordinary course
of trade and that the domestic sales price did
not provide an appropriate basis for the normal
value.

the total

— measures, i.e. standard or cut-to-size.

(v) Normal value based on actual domestic

price

Hardboard types were considered as being directly
comparable if they shared all the above character-
istics.

Where it was found that a hardboard type as avail-
able in different qualities, only hardboards shareing
the above characteristicas and having the same
quality were considered directly comparable.

(30) When the requirements set out in recitals 26, 27,
28 and 29(a) and (b) above were met, normal value
was established for the type in question on the
basis of the prices paid or payable, in the ordinary
course of trade, by independent customers in the
domestic market of the exporting country as set out
in Article 2(1) of the Basic Regulation.

6. 8. 98

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 218/21

(vi) Normal
value

value based on constructed

(31)

In all other cases normal value was constructed. In
this respect it should be noted that the normal
value could not be established on the basis of
prices of other sellers or producers, as an alternative
to constructed normal value. This is due to the fact
that in practically all cases, the other cooperating
exporting producers did not sell at all the corres-
ponding product
in representative
types or not
quantities or not in the ordinary course of trade.

The constructed normal value was determined by
adding to the manufacturing costs of the exported
types, a reasonable percentage for selling, general
and administrative (hereafter referred as ‘SG&A’)
expenses and a reasonable margin for profit.

this purpose,

For
the Commission examined
the SG&A expenses incurred and the
whether
profit realised by each of the exporting producers
concerned on the domestic market could be used.
With regard to every exporting producer,
it was
found that SG&A and profit could be based on its
own data concerning domestic sales of the like
product, pursuant to Article 2(6) of the Basic Regu-
lation.

(b) Export price

Accordingly, allowances for differences in transport,
insurance, handling, loading and ancillary charges,
import charges and indirect taxes, packing costs,
credit, commissions, discounts and rebates, after
sales costs and currency conversion have been
granted where applicable and justified.

The comparison between normal value and export
price was made on an ex-factory basis and at the
same level of trade.

(d) Dumping margins with regard to market
economy countries subject to investigation

(i) Dumping margin for companies invest-

igated

(34) According to Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation,
for establishing the dumping margin the weighted
average normal value by type, as determined in
accordance with recitals 25 to 31, was compared
with the weighted average export price, as deter-
mined in accordance with recital 32. Since the
type varied, a weighted
dumping margins per
average dumping margin was established.

(ii) Dumping margin for non-cooperating

companies

(32)

In all cases where exports of the product concerned
in the
were made to independent customers
Community, the export price was established in
accordance with Article 2(8) of the Basic Regula-
tion, i.e. on the basis of export prices actually paid
or payable.

(35)

those

For
exporting producers which neither
replied to the Commission’s questionnaire nor
otherwise made themselves known, the dumping
margin was established on the basis of the facts
available, in accordance with Article 18(1) of the
Basic Regulation.

In those cases in which the export price was con-
sidered to be unreliable because the sale was made
to a related party, an export price was constructed
pursuant to Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation, i.e.
on the basis of the price at which the imported
products were first resold to an independent buyer
in the Community. In such cases, adjustments were
made for all costs incurred between importation
and resale and for profits accruing, in order to es-
tablish a reliable export price at the Community
frontier level.

(c) Comparison

(33)

For the purpose or ensuring a fair comparison
between the normal value and the export price, due
allowance in the form of adjustments was made for
differences affecting price comparability in ac-
cordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.

the total exports of

For each country subject to investigation, a com-
parison of
the country ac-
cording to Eurostat with the volume of exports to
the Community reported by the cooperating expor-
ting producers was made in order to establish the
overall
level of cooperation. With regard to all
countries subject to investigation, except for Russia,
it was found that the overall level of cooperation
was high. Therefore, it was considered appropriate
to set the dumping margin for the non-cooperating
companies in the countries with high cooperation
at the level of the highest or the sole dumping
margin established for a cooperating company in
the country in question. Indeed, there is no reason
to believe
exporting
producer in any exporting country concerned had
dumped at a lower level than a cooperating ex-
porting producer in the same country. The above
approach was also considered necessary in order to
avoid creating a bonus for non-cooperation and an
opportunity for circumvention.

a non-cooperating

that

L 218/22

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

6. 8. 98

(e) Dumping margins with regard to Russia

(36)

In line with the provisions of Article 9(5) of the
Basic Regulation, a single country-wide dumping
margin was established for this country.

2. Specific issues raised by the investigation
establishment of
countries

with regard to the
dumping

the

for

each of
concerned

(a) Brazil

(i) Normal value

(37) Normal value was established according to the
general methodology outlined in recitals 25 to 31.
For both exporting producers, depending on the
product types, normal values based on domestic
sales prices and constructed values have been deter-
mined.

(ii) Export price

(38)

For exports made to unrelated importers the export
prices were established according to the general
methodology outlined in recital 32, i.e. on the basis
of the prices actually paid or payable. The exports
by one of the Brazilian companies were partially
made to a related importer in the Community and
therefore
corresponding export price was
constructed pursuant to Article 2(9) of the Basic
Regulation, as set out also in recital 32.

the

(iii) Comparison

(39) According to the general methodology outlined in
recital 33, allowances for differences in import
charges and indirect taxes, rebates, transport,
in-
loading and ancillary costs,
surance, handling,
credit costs, after sales costs and commissions have
been granted where applicable and justified.

Allowance for currency conversion

(40)

In view of the revaluation of the Brazilian Real as
compared to some of
the currencies in which
export sales were invoiced, one Brazilian exporting
producer
requested an allowance for currency
conversion. The requested allowance was based on
the claim that the date of sale should not be the
date of invoice but the date of contract. However,
the Brazilian exporting producer was not able to
demonstrate that the date of contract more appro-
priately established the material terms of sale. In
particular, it should be noted in this respect that:

— in some instances no evidence of the existence
of a contract concluded prior to the delivery
was furnished,

— the contracts submitted were only framework
contracts; in particular the quantities to be de-
livered and the dates of delivery were not deter-
mined in these contracts in a definitive manner.

the Commission found for

However,
several
currencies in which the exports were invoiced that
a sustained movement in exchange rates occurred
during the investigation period. Therefore the
Commission made an allowance for currency
conversion for both Brazilian exporting producers
in accordance with Article 2(10)(j) of
the Basic
Regulation by granting the exporters 60 days to
reflect such movement.

Allowance for
export credits

financial

income resulting from

(41) One Brazilian exporting producer claimed an al-
lowance based on a credit scheme of the Brazilian
Government under which a Brazilian bank buys in
advance the value of an export transaction made in
foreign currencies
to pre-finance the
in order
purchase of raw materials and the production costs
the goods to be sold abroad. Through this
of
scheme,
the company was able to obtain an
advance in local currency at an advantageous in-
terest rate. As the Brazilian company maintains
sufficient liquidity to finance its production costs, it
placed the amount advanced at higher interest rates
on the domestic capital market. The company
claims that the financial gains of this operation
the
should be added to the ex-works value of
benefits
export
resulted from a financial operation under
the
export credit
taken into
account in the determination of the prices charged.
Therefore, the scheme does not affect price com-
parability. The claim should, consequently, be
rejected.

transactions. However,

scheme and are not

these

Allowance for financing expenses related to stock-
holding for sales on the domestic market

(42) One Brazilian exporting producer claimed an
adjustment to its normal value on the basis that its
domestic sales are made from stock,
therefore
incurring expenses to finance this stock, whereas
for the export market it produces to order. Finan-
cial expenses of the type described above do not
qualify for an adjustment pursuant to Article 2(10)
of the Basic Regulation. This is in particular true

6. 8. 98

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 218/23

for adjustments pursuant to Article 2(10)(k) since
the company did not demonstrate that this dif-
ference affects price comparability: in particular, it
has not been shown that customers pay consis-
tently different prices on the domestic market
because of this factor.

Allowance for commissions
domestic market

for

sales on the

(43) One Brazilian exporting producer claimed an
adjustment for commissions paid in relation to its
in question
domestic sales. The commissions
constitute a variable part of the salary of the sales
force of the company in charge of the domestic
market and have the function of an incentive.

Such payments do not qualify for an adjustment
pursuant to Article 2(10) of the Basic Regulation
since the system of remuneration of the sales force
of the company does in principle not affect price
comparability; in particular, the company has not
shown that customers consistently pay different
prices on the domestic market because of
this
factor.

(iv) Dumping margin

(44)

The dumping margins expressed as a percentage of
the cif import price at the Community border duty
unpaid are the following:

Duratex SA:

Eucatex SA:

Non cooperating exporters:

29,1 %

77,8 %

77,8 %.

(b) Bulgaria

(45)

In view of the high inflation prevailing in Bulgaria
during the investigation period, the ordinary course
of trade test was carried out on a monthly basis and
normal values were also established on a monthly
basis. The same is true with regard to the com-
parison between the normal value and the export
price.

(i) Normal value

(46) Domestic sales of each exporting producer were, on
an overall basis, representative. Normal value was
established on a monthly basis according to the
general methodology outlined in recitals 25 to 31.
Consequently,
types,
which were sold on the domestic market in repre-
sentative quantities and in the ordinary course of
trade, monthly normal values were calculated on
the basis of the corresponding domestic prices. In

for those exported product

cases where normal

those
value had to be
constructed, monthly cost of production and
monthly domestic profit margins were used.

(ii) Export price

(47) All sales of the product concerned made by the two
Bulgarian exporting producers to the Community
market were made to independent customers.
Export price was established according the general
methodology outlined in recital 32, i.e. on the basis
of the prices actually paid or payable.

(iii) Comparison

(48) According to the general methodology outlined in
recital 33, allowances for differences in transport,
insurance, handling, loading and ancillary expenses,
packing costs, credit costs and commissions have
been granted where applicable and justified.

One of two cooperating Bulgarian exporting produ-
cers did not provide sufficient evidence concerning
differences affecting price comparability as far as
some adjustments to express export sales on an
ex-factory basis were concerned. In this respect, it
was considered that the information submitted by
the other Bulgarian company would constitute the
most reasonable basis for making the necessary
adjustments.

(iv) Dumping margin

(49)

The dumping margins expressed as a percentage of
the cif import price at the Community border duty
unpaid are the following:

Fazerles AD:

Lessoplast AD:

Non cooperating exporters:

7,1 %

7,2 %

7,2 %.

(c) Estonia

(i) Normal value

(50)

The Estonian exporting producer only exported
one hardboard type to the Community. Normal
value was established on the basis of the actual
price for all domestic sales of this hardboard type
according to the general methodology outlined in
recitals 25 to 31.

(ii) Export price

(51) All sales of the product concerned made by the
Estonian exporting producer to the Community
were made to independent customers. The export
price was established, therefore, according to the
general methodology outlined in recital 32, i.e. on
the basis of the prices actually paid or payable.

L 218/24

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

6. 8. 98

(iii) Comparison

(52) According to the general methodology outlined in
recital 33, allowances for differences in transport,
insurance, handling, loading and ancillary expenses,
credit costs and packing have been granted where
applicable and justified.

The Estonian exporting producer claimed an
adjustment to normal value for differences in levels
of trade. However, the investigation revealed that
there was neither
in functions
performed by the company nor a consistent and
distinct difference in prices for the alleged different
levels of trade in the domestic market of the ex-
porting country. Therefore, the requested adjust-
ment was not granted.

a difference

(iv) Dumping margin

(53)

The dumping margins expressed as a percentage of
the cif import price at the Community border duty
unpaid are the following:

AS Repo Vabrikud:

Non cooperating exporters:

6,0 %

6,0 %.

concerned made in the ordinary course of trade, in
accordance with Article 2(6) of the Basic Regula-
tion.

(ii) Export price

(55)

Part of the Latvian producer’s export sales were
made to a customer in the Community which had
a small shareholding in the Latvian producer (signi-
ficantly less than 5 %). Since a comparison of the
terms of these export sales with those of other
export sales to independent customers showed that
the former have been made on an arm’s length
basis, it was decided to establish the export price
for all export transactions by reference to the prices
actually paid or payable, in accordance with Article
2(8) of the Basic Regulation as outlined in recital
32.

(iii) Comparison

(56) According to the general methodology outlined in
recital 33, allowances for differences in transport,
insurance, handling, loading and ancillary expenses
as well as credit costs have been granted where
applicable and justified.

(d) Latvia

(i) Normal value

(57)

(54)

The Latvian exporting producer investigated had a
significant shareholding in another domestic hard-
board producer. This other domestic producer
undertook the finishing of certain hardboard types
exported to the Community. Therefore, for such
product types, in order to establish normal value,
the representativeness test and the ordinary course
of trade tests were carried out on the basis of the
joint domestic sales volumes and the aggregated
cost of production of both companies, for each of
the product types manufactured by the two com-
panies.

In all other aspects, normal value was established
according to the general methodology outlined in
recitals 25 to 31.

normal

applicable,

Where
value was
the
constructed by adding to the cost of manufacture of
the exported types of both companies, a reasonable
amount for SG&A and a reasonable amount for
profit. Since the global domestic sales were repre-
sentative,
the weighted average domestic SG&A
incurred by the exporting producer and the related
domestic producer were used. The profit margin
used was
the weighted average profit margin
achieved by the exporting producer and the related
domestic producer on domestic sales of the product

Allowance for currency conversion

In view of the revaluation of the Latvian Lat as
compared to some of
the currencies in which
export sales were invoiced, the Latvian exporting
producer
requested an allowance for currency
conversion. The requested allowance was based on
a comparison of the amount in Lats the company
would have obtained using the exchange rate appli-
cable at the time of the conclusions of the contract
and the amount actually obtained. However, it was
found that the contracts submitted by the Latvian
exporting producer did not properly reflect
the
material terms of sale and that the date of invoice
more appropriately established these terms.
In
particular, the terms of the contracts have been
changed during their period of validity. Conse-
quently, it was found that the date of sale should be
the date of invoice. Moreover, as the conditions for
making an adjustment for a sustained movement in
exchange rates were not met, the claim has been
rejected.

(iv) Dumping margin

(58)

The comparison showed the existence of dumping.
The dumping margins expressed as a percentage of
the cif import price at the Community border duty
unpaid are the following:

AS ‘Bolder(cid:131)ja’:

Non cooperating exporters:

5,8 %

5,8 %.

6. 8. 98

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 218/25

(e) Lithuania

(i) Normal value

(59) Normal

for

value

the Lithuanian exporting
producer investigated was established according to
the general methodology outlined in recitals 25 to
31. On this basis, normal value was established by
reference to domestic sales prices for two product
types, while for a third type, normal value had to be
constructed.

(ii) Export price

(60) All sales of the product concerned made by the
Lithuanian exporting producer to the Community
were made to independent customers. The export
price was established, therefore, according to the
general methodology outlined in recital 32, i.e. on
the basis of the prices actually paid or payable.

(iii) Comparison

(61) According to the general methodology outlined in
recital 33, allowances for differences in transport,
handling,
loading and ancillary expenses, credit
costs, packing, commissions and currency conver-
sions have been granted where applicable and justi-
fied.

Allowance for level of trade

(62)

(63)

trade by claiming that export

The Lithuanian exporting producer requested an
adjustment to normal value for differences in levels
of
sales in the
Community were made to distributors and whole-
salers, who bought large quantities, while sales on
the domestic market were made to distributors,
retailers, processors and final users. However, the
company could neither demonstrate that there was
a difference in functions performed by it or that
there was a consistent and distinct difference in
trade in the
prices
domestic market of the exporting country. There-
fore,
requested could not be
granted.

the adjustment

the different

levels of

for

Allowance for currency conversion

In view of the revaluation of the Lithuanian Lita as
the currencies in which
compared to some of
export sales were invoiced, the Lithuanian export-
ing producer requested an allowance for currency
conversion. The requested allowance was based on
a comparison of the amount in Litas the company
would have obtained using the exchange rate appli-
cable at the time of the conclusion of the contract
and the amount actually obtained (i.e. using the
exchange rate applicable on the date of payment).

However, it was found that the contracts submitted
by the Lithuanian exporting producer did not
properly reflect the material terms of sale and that
the invoice more appropriately established these
terms.

However, the Commission found that a sustained
movement in exchange rates occurred during the
investigation period for several currencies in which
the exports were invoiced and made an allowance
for currency conversion in accordance with Article
2(10)(j) of
the Basic Regulation by granting the
exporter 60 days to reflect such movement.

(iv) Dumping margin

(64)

The comparison showed the existence of dumping.
The dumping margins expressed as a percentage of
the cif import price at the Community border duty
unpaid are the following:

JSC Grigiskes:

Non cooperating exporters:

11,4 %

11,4 %.

(f) Poland

(i) Normal value

(65) Normal value was established according to the
general methodology outlined in recitals 25 to 31.
For all six Polish exporting producers, depending
on the product
types, normal values based on
domestic sales prices and constructed values have
been determined.

One of the Polish exporting producers requested an
adjustment to its normal value for start-up opera-
tions concerning the production of worked hard-
board. The adjustment claimed was equivalent to
the reduction in the unit cost of production of
worked hardboard that would have been obtained
with a capacity utilisation of 70 %. However, on
the information submitted by the
the basis of
company, it was found that any reasonable length
of the start-up phase expired before the investiga-
tion period. Furthermore, there was no subsequent
increase in the capacity utilisation which, during
the investigation period, remained at the level of
20 %. Under these circumstances no start-up cost
adjustment could be granted.

(ii) Export price

(66) All sales of the product concerned made by the six
Polish exporting producers
to the Community
market were made to independent customers. The
export prices for the six companies were estab-
lished, therefore, according to the general meth-
odology outlined in recital 32, i.e. on the basis of
the prices actually paid or payable.

L 218/26

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

6. 8. 98

(iii) Comparison

(67) According to the general methodology outlined in
recital 33, allowances for differences in physical
characteristics, import charges, transport, handling,
loading and ancillary expenses, discounts, ancillary
cost,
and
currency conversions have been granted where
applicable and justified.

costs, packing,

commissions

credit

(iv) Dumping margin

(68)

The comparison showed the existence of dumping.
The dumping margins expressed as a percentage of
the cif import price at the Community border duty
unpaid are the following:

Alpex-Karlino SA:

Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych w
Czarnej Wodjie:

Ekoplyta SA:

Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych SA
w Przemyslu:

Koniecpolskie Zaklady Plyt
Pilsniowych SA:

Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych SA
w Krosnie Odrzanskim:

Non cooperating exporters:

(g) Russia

(i) Analogue country

22,4 %

37,8 %

18,6 %

9,1 %

11,4 %

11,8 %

37,8 %.

(69)

Since Russia falls under the provision of Article
2(7) of the Basic Regulation, it was necessary to
establish normal value by reference to a market
economy third country, i.e. an analogue country.
The United States of America, Chile and Argentina
were proposed by the complainants as possible
analogue countries. However, no cooperation could
be obtained from producers of hardboard located in
any of these countries. Under these circumstances
it was decided to have recourse to a country subject
to the investigation.

In this respect, the Russian authorities proposed a
central and eastern European country (CEEC), in
particular Bulgaria, as a more appropriate choice.

The Russian authorities were requested to explain
the reasons which gave rise to propose Bulgaria and
to submit specific information on the appropriate-
ness of this country. However, so far, no reply has
been received.

considered the most

Of the CEECs subject to the investigation, Poland
analogue
was
country. First, the domestic Polish market is the
biggest in size and it is characterised by a signi-
ficant number of local competing producers. The

adequate

volume of Polish domestic sales is more than three
times that of other CEECs subject to investigation,
and it is representative when compared to imports
from Russia into the Community. Second,
the
Polish market is also open to imports of hardboard
from other countries. In this respect, it should be
noted that the conventional import duty applicable
to hardboard in Poland is 9 %. Imports of hard-
board from the Community and from EFTA coun-
tries are subject to a duty of 1,8 %, and imports of
hardboard from developing countries and certain
CEECs
the Czech Republic, Hungary,
Slovakia, Latvia, etc.) are duty free. Under these
circumstances, Poland was considered as an appro-
priate market economy third country for
the
purpose of establishing normal value for Russia, in
accordance with Article 2(7) of the Basic Regula-
tion.

(like

(ii) Level of cooperation

during

investigation

(70) Only one Russian producer exporting to the
Community
period
the
responded to the questionnaire. On the basis of the
import volumes reported by Eurostat, this company
represented significantly less than 10 % of the total
imports of Russian hardboard into the Community
during the investigation period. Furthermore, the
Russian company exported only one category of
hardboard,
unworked hardboard, whereas
Eurostat reported imports of the two categories of
the product concerned, unworked and worked
hardboard.

i.e.

In the light of this lack of cooperation and in
accordance with Article 18 of the Basic Regulation,
the findings with regard to the remaining imports
from Russia were made on the basis of the facts
available.

(iii) Normal value

(71) Normal value for Russia was calculated on the basis
of the weighted average of the normal values es-
tablished for the cooperating Polish companies, as
described in recital 65. The normal value for the
product type exported by the cooperating Russian
company was calculated on the basis of
the
weighted average normal value of
the identical
product type of the cooperating Polish exporting
producers. The normal value for the remaining
unworked hardboard originating in Russia was
calculated on the basis of the weighted average
normal value of all unworked product types of the
cooperating Polish companies exported to the
Community. The normal value for worked hard-
board originating in Russia was calculated on the
basis of the weighted normal value of all worked
product types of the cooperating Polish companies
exported to the Community.

6. 8. 98

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 218/27

(iv) Export price

(72)

Russian exports to the Community,
for which
information in reasonable detail was submitted in
the course of the investigation, were made directly
to independent
in the Community.
Consequently, the export price of those transac-
tions was established by reference to the prices
actually paid or payable by independent importers
to the sole known Russian exporter for the hard-
board sold.

importers

it was provisionally concluded that

For all other imports from Russia, which represent
more than 90 % of the total import volume from
Russia,
the
export prices should be based on Eurostat. In this
respect, however, it should be noted that there are
some doubts as to the appropriateness of Eurostat
data (inter alia because Eurostat does not distin-
guish between the various hardboard product types
and the product concerned does not cover a full
CN code). This is why the matter will be examined
further in the course of the investigation.

(76)

(v) Comparison

(73)

The comparison of normal value and export price
was made on the basis ‘fob Polish border’ and ‘fob
Russian border’ respectively. With regard to normal
value, all allowances granted to the Polish ex-
porting producers were also used for the establish-
ment of normal value for Russia. Subsequently, the
necessary adjustments have been made in order to
bring the normal values to a level
‘fob Polish
border’.

With regard to the export price, adjustments have
been made in order to take account of transport
and insurance costs. These costs have been calcu-
lated on the basis of the information submitted by
a cooperating independent importer.

(vi) Dumping margin for Russia

(74)

The comparison, as described above, showed the
existence of dumping in respect of imports of hard-
board from Russia. A single dumping margin has
been calculated for Russia: 31,1 %.

D. INJURY

1. Preliminary remark

such data in tonnes only. For the sake of accuracy,
injury indicators relating to the development of the
Community industry’s
sales volumes and sales
prices as well as non-complainant Community
producers’ prices have been given in square metres
since this is the measurement used by the entire
industry (including the exporting producers). In any
event, had the figures expressed below in square
metres been converted into tonnes, the assessment
and the conclusions on injury would not have been
different. It should finally be noted that figures
concerning undercutting and injury margins are
based on data which were obtained on a per square
metre basis.

2. Definition of the Community industry

Five of the eight complaining Community produ-
cers responded to the Commission’s questionnaire
within the deadline set. The remaining producers
did not cooperate in the investigation. The five
the
cooperating producers represented 43 % of
total Community production of
the product
concerned in the investigation period; of the non-
complaining producers only one,
representing
the Community production,
around 5 % of
opposed the complaint as regards imports from
Brazil. The cooperating Community producers
therefore represent a major proportion of
the
Community production and thus the Community
industry in accordance with Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of
the expression
the Basic Regulation. Hereafter,
‘Community industry’ will
refer only to these
cooperating five producers.

3. Consumption

(77)

the product
Total Community production of
concerned,
including cooperating and non co-
operating producers, developed from 668 900
tonnes in 1993 to 777 000 tonnes in the investiga-
tion period.

(78) On the basis of Community production as deter-
mined above plus total Community imports minus
total Community exports, Community apparent
consumption was determined. It increased by 20 %
from 989 497 tonnes in 1993 to 1 188 557 tonnes
by the end of the investigation period.

4. Imports from the countries concerned

(a) Cumulation

(75)

Import-related injury indicators concerning the
entire period under examination have mostly been
given on a per tonne basis because information for
the years preceding the investigation period has
mainly been taken from Eurostat which provides

(79)

It was examined whether the effect of imports of
hardboard originating in the countries concerned
should be assessed cumulatively, in accordance to
Article 3(4) of the Basic Regulation.

L 218/28

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

6. 8. 98

The cooperating Brazilian exporters argued that
imports into the Community from Brazil should
not be cumulated with imports from the other
countries concerned in the proceeding, as
the
conditions of competition between Brazilian hard-
board and that
from these other countries and
Community-produced hardboard were different.
They argued that hardboard produced in Brazil and
exported to the Community is different in physical
characteristics and quality from the hardboard
produced in the other countries subject
to the
present investigation, and is sold therefore on dif-
ferent markets at different prices and through dif-
ferent sales channels. Moreover, they argued that
the volume and market share of
these imports
show, during the period under examination, a
divergent trend from that of the other countries
concerned.

In this respect, it should be noted that the margins
of dumping established for the Brazilian exporters
concerned are well above the de minimus level set
in Article 9(3) of the Basic Regulation; further, the
share of the Community market represented by
these imports,
it not negligible in the sense of
Article 5(7) of the Basic Regulation. The same is
true with regard to imports from other countries
concerned. Finally, with regard to the conditions of
competition between Brazilian hardboard and that
of the other countries and Community-produced
hardboard,
it has been established above in the
discussion of like product issues, that hardboard of
Brazilian origin competes with hardboard imported
into the Community from the other countries
subject
to investigation and with Community
production. It has also been established that the
imports from all the countries concerned, including
Brazil, undercut
the Community industry prices
(see recital 82). The conditions of Article 3(4) of the
Basic Regulation for the cumulative assessment of
the impact of imports of the product concerned
from Brazil with those from the other countries
concerned are fulfilled.

(b) Development of volumes, values and market

shares

(80)

imports

from the

volume of

countries
The
concerned increased by 18 % over
the period
examined, from 234 083 tonnes in 1993 to 276 992
tonnes in the investigation period. The correspond-
ing value developed from ECU 46 824 000 to ECU
64 828 000, with an increase of 38 % in percentage
terms.

those imports rose from
The market share of
23,7 % in 1993 to 27,7 % in 1995, to return to
about its previous level in the investigation period,
when it was 23,3 %.

(c) Development of prices

types are not available for

(81) Company data on the export sales prices of indi-
the
vidual product
periods prior to the investigation period. To iden-
tify the trend of the development of prices for the
period since 1993, recourse was had to Eurostat
information on unit values.

of

values

imports

from the

The information available showed that the average
unit
countries
concerned rose steadily throughout
the period,
from ECU 200 to ECU 234 per tonne. In index
terms, they rose from 100 in 1993 to 117 at the
end of the investigation period. However, in the
investigation period imports from all the countries
concerned were still undercutting the Community
industry’s prices, as explained below.

(d) Price comparison, price undercutting

(82)

Price undercutting was established on the basis of a
comparison of the prices of the Community produ-
cers and the cif export prices, Community frontier
duty paid, at
the
the same level of
imports from the countries concerned.

trade,

for

Throughout the comparison, to the greatest extent
possible, the prices of similar product types were
compared. The export
transactions used for the
comparison represent a share of at least 21 % of
the total exports of each exporting producer
concerned, and at least 78 % of total exports for
each country concerned.

The levels of price undercutting were found to be
as follows:

Summary of the price undercutting margins

Country

Weighted average
undercutting on a
direct product
type-to-type comparison
(%)

Brazil

Bulgaria

Estonia

Latvia

5,24

39,57

64,90

8,64

6. 8. 98

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 218/29

Country

Weighted average
undercutting on a
direct product
type-to-type comparison
(%)

Lithuania

Poland

Russia

5,72

15,09

27,04

(e) Production cost

(87) Average production cost increased from ECU 379
per tonne in 1993 to ECU 400 per tonne in 1995,
falling back to ECU 380 per tonne in the investiga-
tion period. These developments in unit costs did
not depend on raw material price variations, but
reflected the productivity of the industry, which
decreased between 1993 and 1995, then recovered
thanks to an effort from the industry to improve its
efficiency.

5. Situation of the Community industry

(88)

(a) General

(83)

(84)

(85)

the

investigation period,

The information below does not include one of the
cooperating complainant Community producers,
the British producer Techboard Ltd. This company
started the production of hardboard in December
1995. During
the
company was not only far from full capacity utilisa-
tion, but was also unable to match even its variable
costs with its sales prices. Techboard’s performance
was therefore not considered as sufficiently repre-
sentative to be aggregated with that of the other
Community producers, and its figures, particularly
its significant
the
picture of the situation of the Community industry.
Data relating to this company have not, therefore,
been taken into consideration for assessing injury.

losses, would distort

financial

(b) Production and capacity utilisation

Production showed a 2 % decline, from 308 259
tonnes in 1993 to 302 653 in the investigation
period. Production capacity remained stable at
412 083 tonnes, while the level of utilisation
decreased slightly from 75 to 73 %.

(c) Sales in the Community: volume and market

share

Sales volumes in the Community in m2 increased
by 13 % over the period examined, from about
91,6 million in 1993 to 103,6 million in the invest-
igation period. The Community industry’s market
share decreased from 28% in 1993, to 25,3 % in
1995, then picked up to 26,9 % in 1996, decreasing
again to 26,4 % in the investigation period.

(d) Sales in the Community: turnover and prices

(86)

Sales turnover decreased by 5 %, from ECU 101,7
million 1993 to ECU 96,3 million in the investiga-
tion period. Average unit prices fell by 16 % from
ECU 1,11 per m2 to ECU 0,93 per m2 over the
same period.

(f) Profitability

The Community industry was never profitable in
the period under examination, with losses increas-
ing from 8,1 % of turnover in 1993 to 12,7 % in
1994. After improving slightly in 1995, when they
made losses of 10,9 %, the Community industry’s
losses worsened to 12,6 % in 1996, finally reaching
13 % in the investigation period. This negative
development was a result of a price decline in
excess of the fall in unit production costs which
the Community industry achieved from 1995
onward.

(g) Employment

(89)

Employment relating to the product concerned fell
steadily by 13 % over the period examined, from
1 054 employees in 1993 to 912 in the investiga-
tion period.

(h) Investment

(90)

Investment was substantially reduced from ECU 4,3
million in 1993 to ECU 2,9 million in the invest-
igation period, a fall of 33 % over the period.

6. Conclusion on injury

(91)

In the light of the above findings, it is concluded
that the Community industry has suffered material
injury. Although production and market share fell
only slightly, and sales volumes increased over the
period analysed, this was achieved at the cost of a
sales prices, which
substantial deterioration of
caused increasing financial
losses and cash flow
insufficient for investment in plant renewal and

L 218/30

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

6. 8. 98

(92)

Indeed,

maintenance.
the Community industry
made an effort, between 1995 and the investigation
period, to improve its efficiency, maintaining the
same output levels with significant reductions in
production costs and employment, succeeding in
bringing unit costs back to their 1993 level.
However, this effort had little impact on a worse-
ning financial situation.

E. CAUSATION

1. Effect of the imports from the countries

concerned

imports

from the

volume of

The
countries
concerned increased by 18 % between 1993 and
the investigation period. Although their prices
increased, on average, by 17 % during the same
period, they still undercut substantially the prices
of the Community industry in the investigation
period. The latter prices declined in index terms
from 100 to 84 over the period examined. This
clearly indicated the presence of a strong downward
pressure on the prices charged by the Community
industry. The downward pressure on sales prices in
the Community is confirmed looking at the de-
velopment of
the average prices at which the
Community industry was selling to third countries.
These prices were,
in the investigation period,
substantially higher than the prices in the Com-
munity, having increased by 17 % over the period
examined.

The Community industry broadly managed to
maintain its level of production and capacity utili-
sation, and even increased its sales volumes. It
should be noted that, given the high fixed costs of
this industry, full and steady capacity utilisation is

crucial to keeping production costs under control
at a reasonable level.
falling sales prices,
however, meant
the Community producers’
sales turnover declined by 5 % over the period
considered.

that

Its

The Community industry’s market share partly
recovered by the investigation period (26,4 %) after
dipping to 25 % in 1995, but did not regain its
1994 level (28 %). While this was happening, its
losses worsened. By the investigation period, these
were 13 % on turnover.

these factors indicate that

All
the Community
industry was forced to adopt a strategy of matching
the price of the dumped imports so as to be able to
maintain their sales volumes. The result was the
deterioration in their already loss-making situation.

2. Other factors

(a) Imports from other third countries

(93) A number of exporting producers contended that
the injury to the Community industry was caused
by imports from other countries not subject to this
investigation. They point
the
market share of the countries subject to investiga-
tion declined since 1995 from 28 to 23 %, while
the market shares of other third countries and the
Community industry both increased over the same
period.

to the fact

that

The following table, based on Eurostat data, shows
that there was indeed a significant increase in the
volumes of the imports from third countries which
was coupled with a rise in their market share of 3,6
percentage points from 1993 to the investigation
period, reaching 15,5 % by the end of the invest-
igation period.

Other third countries

Description

1993

1994

1995

1996

Investigation
period

Quantity (raw and worked)
Indexed

117 586,60
100

177 255,90
151

161 488,40
137

158 794,90
135

183 742,60
156

Value (raw and worked)

Market share (%)

Indexed

Indexed

Price per tonne (ECU)

Indexed

51 101,68
100

69 714,28
136

72 935,01
143

78 851,63
154

98 398,38
193

11,9

100

435
100

15,6

131

393
90

13,9

117

452
104

14,0

118

497
114

15,5

130

536
123

6. 8. 98

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 218/31

throughout

Eurostat statistics on unit values show two things.
First, the price per tonne of other third countries
exports to the Community increased by 23 % over
the period from 1993 to the investigation period.
the price per
Secondly,
tonne of third country exports was always signi-
ficantly higher than the unit values for the coun-
tries concerned, and was over twice that of the
countries concerned by the end of the investigation
period. This value was also above that of
the
Community industry throughout the period.

this period,

As, therefore, the information available indicates
that the prices of third country exports did not
undercut or depress
the Community
industry, an injurious price-and-profitability impact
on the Community industry from these exports is,
if any, unlikely to be of a major nature.

those of

(94)

(b) Competition from non-cooperating producers in

the Community

investigated whether

The Commission
the
Community industry suffered injury as a result of
the competition from other producers
in the
Community which are not party to the present
complaint. As was shown above, total Community
production of the like product rose 16 % between
1993 and the investigation period, whereas the
production of the Community industry declined
slightly by 2 % over the same period. The differ-
ence was made up by an increase in production
among the non-complainant Community produ-
cers.

To analyse the situation, the Commission made use
of production and sales volume and value data
submitted by some of the non-cooperating Com-
munity producers. The data available show that, on
a weighted average basis, unit prices per m2 of the
non-complaining Community producers were as
follows:

Non-complainant
Community producers’
unit prices

Weighted
price in ECU per m2

average

unit

Indexed

Pro memo: The Com-
munity
unit
price per m2

industry’s

1993

1994

1995

1996

Investigation
period

1,02

100

1,11

1,00

98

1,08

0,98

95

1,05

0,99

97

0,96

0,98

96

0,93

As can be seen from the above table, the non-com-
plainants’ unit prices were lower than those of the
Community industry only up to 1995. Since then,
the Community industry’s unit prices have been
lower than those of the non-complainant Com-
munity producers. It is unlikely, therefore, that the
non-complaining Community producers were a
source of injury to the Community industry,
in
since the unit prices of both com-
particular
plainants and non-complainants were undercut by
the prices of imports from the countries concerned.

(c) Competition from medium and high density

fibreboards

(95)

It was argued by various exporting producers that
the injury suffered by the Community industry was
not caused by the dumped imports, but by the
competition from MDF/HDF. MDF/HDF is
alleged to be a high-quality and price-competitive
product which has been experiencing high rates of
growth in consumption in recent years. It is, ac-

cording to the exporting producers concerned,
progressively replacing hardboard in most uses.

The Commission has considered the role of
MDF/HDF in the development of
the injury
suffered by the Community industry.

The analysis shows that, as pointed out
in the
‘Product under consideration’ section above, despite
the strong growth in the MDF/HDF market in
recent years, this has not occurred at the expense of
the hardboard market. Indeed, consumption of
hardboard has increased since 1993. The investiga-
tion has also established that only thin MDF, rep-
resenting in 1997 about 14 % of the Community
production of MDF, competes with hardboard and
only in some market segments; interchangeability
would therefore only be possible to a limited
extent.

In this context, it should be noted that data do not
indicate that an interchange occurred, as
the
Community industry’s sales volumes were main-
tained, albeit at depressed prices, due to the strong
downward pressure on prices exerted by the
dumped imports. Since no evidence was found that

L 218/32

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

6. 8. 98

MDF/HDF is undercutting the Community indus-
try’s hardboard prices, no link between the injury
in terms of price depression and the growth of
MDF/HDF has been established.

(d) Hardboard as a declining product

(96)

Various interested parties contended that the hard-
board industry is a sunset industry, producing a
product at the end of its product life-cycle. It was
this alleged maturity is the main
implied that
reason for
the Community
industry.

the difficulties of

The Commission does not share this view. As was
shown above, apparent consumption of the product
concerned increased by 20 % over the period from
1993 to the end of the investigation period. In-
creasing demand is not a feature of a declining
market. This is all the more valid since this growth
in hardboard consumption took place at the same
time at which the thin MDF market was expanding
significantly.

— second, whether it could be clearly concluded
that
the
in the overall
Community to apply measures in this particular
case.

interest of

is not

it

contacted.

(99) On initiation, the Commission advised the relevant
industrial associations representing user industries
and suppliers to the Community industry; 35 asso-
the
Subsequently,
ciations were
Commission advised all
interested parties which
had made themselves known within the required
deadline to submit substantiated information on
issues relating to the Community interest. In order
to simplify this process, the Commission invited
the interested parties to complete questionnaires
which had been especially drawn up for each type
of economic operator potentially affected. Ques-
tionnaires were thus sent to supplier firms oper-
ating upstream in the production chain from the
Community industry as well as to user industries of
hardboard. The questionnaire sent
to unrelated
importers in the Community also contained a
section relating to Community interest.

3. Conclusion on causation

2. Impact on the Community industry

(97)

The above examination shows that the Community
industry had to match the prices of the dumped
imports in order to maintain production volumes,
sales and capacity utilisation in an attempt to keep
unit production costs at a low level. In doing so,
the Community industry’s losses worsened consid-
erably. Although competition from imports from
other
non-complainant
Community producers, as well as the rise of substi-
tute products such as thin MDF may also have
contributed to the injury suffered by the Com-
munity industry, these effects were not such as to
break the causal link between the dumped imports
from the countries concerned and the material
injury to the Community industry.

countries

third

and

F. COMMUNITY INTEREST

1. General considerations

(98)

Pursuant to Article 21 of the Basic Regulation, the
Commission examined, on the basis of
the
evidence submitted:

— first, the likely positive and negative effects of

taking and of not taking measures, and

(a) Nature of the industry

(100) The Community industry is a well-established
industry producing hardboard for over four decades.
The companies concerned are typically of medium
size, and are usually involved in the production of a
range of wood-based panel products such that their
hardboard production forms only part of
their
range of products.

Over the years the Community industry has had to
invest heavily in order to meet Community criteria
on the protection of the environment. In general,
this has involved installing water filtration and
purification plants for the wet production process
without which continued production would not be
permitted by law.

The Community industry has developed into an
industrial sector servicing a steady demand for a
product which continues to find applications in
many varied fields, from the automotive industry to
interior decoration, do-it-yourself and fruit pack-
aging. Throughout
the Community
industry has invested in new technologies and
manufacturing techniques which have increased its
its
productive efficiency. The high quality of
output, produced efficiently even under
strict
Community environmental legislation, ensures its
viability and competitiveness in the future.

its history,

6. 8. 98

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 218/33

(101) The main problem being faced by the Community
industry, as discussed in the injury section, is the
fact that it had to drop prices in order to match
those of the dumped imports to try to maintain
market share and volume of output. As a result of
this strategy, profitability declined, so that weighted
average losses on turnover worsened to 13 % by the
end of the investigation period, despite the efforts
to improve the efficiency level. Under
these
circumstances, it is considered that if prices were to
the trade-
rise again following the removal of
distorting effects of
the
Community industry would be able to reduce its
losses and be equipped to address the other chal-
lenges it faces on the wood-based panels market.

the dumped imports,

(b) Competition from rival products

(102) One of the importers argued that the imposition of
anti-dumping measures would not help the
Community industry since the current price level
of thin MDF allegedly acts as a ceiling to the de-
velopment of hardboard prices. It was argued that
the two products have roughly equivalent price
levels. Therefore, if there is any attempt to raise the
price of Community-made hardboard,
this will
merely result
in an increase in the quantity
demanded of thin MDF, at the expense of demand
for hardboard produced by the Community produ-
cers.

This argument is based on an assumption that thin
MDF is entirely interchangeable with hardboard.
As was discussed in the ‘Like product’ section
above, however, this is not the case, as end-use
applications where there is no interchangeability
between the two products remain. The data av-
ailable on prices of MDF/HDF indicate that only
recently have prices of thin MDF panels begun to
fall to reach the levels of Community-produced
hardboard of equivalent thickness. However, even if
this trend were to continue in the near future, it is
not clear, given the fact that the two producers are
not fully interchangeable, that an attempt to raise
the price of hardboard would merely result in a rise
in the demand for thin MDF.

3. Impact on upstream industries

(103) Contacts with national associations of

supplier
industries revealed a certain lack of interest in this
proceeding.

The European Sawmills Organisation, having
presented itself as an interested party within the
deadline set, submitted no further arguments.

The Commission also sent questionnaires to five
companies which, it was claimed, were interested in
cooperating in its investigation. However, no ques-
tionnaire responses were returned within the dead-
line set. In the absence of any information from
the suppliers
the
Commission has not been able to take them into
account in drawing its provisional conclusions.

to the hardboard producers,

(104) Three manufacturers of machinery used by the
hardboard industry also made themselves known.
However, at this stage, the information available
does not allow the Commission to draw firm
conclusions on the impact of measures on this
sector.

4. Impact on importers-traders

(105) The Commission sent questionnaires to 38 im-
porters in the Community. Six usable questionnaire
responses were returned within the deadline set.

the

that

competition between the

In general, the opinion in the responses received
was
rival
products, hardboard and thin MDF, would be the
primary determinant of the impact of any anti-
dumping measures on importers, as explained
above in recital 102. The alleged substitution of
hardboard with thin MDF would harm importers-
traders, even possibly forcing them to closure.

However, as stated above, the data available at this
stage confirm that the price of thin MDF has been
declining steadily in recent years and its ap-
proaching the levels of hardboard of equivalent
thickness produced by the Community industry. It
is however, still well above the average price of the
dumped imports from the countries concerned.
The imposition of anti-dumping measures is there-
fore unlikely to produce any substitution effect
between imported hardboard and thin MDF.

Moreover, even if a partial substitution of hardboard
with MDF/HDF or other products occurs,
its
potential effect on importers is unclear. Given that
hardboard does not represent a major proportion of
the turnover of the importers which provided infor-
mation, it is likely that, should the demand for
alternative products increase, these importers could
easily switch trade towards these other products.

L 218/34

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

6. 8. 98

5. Impact on users

(106) Of the 43 questionnaires sent to user firms, the
Commission received 10 usable responses. These
were exclusively from door producers which use
hardboard as door-skins for their door production.
The respondents’ purchases of hardboard accounted
for 3 % of Community consumption of hardboard
during the investigation period.

These 10 companies employed 1 389 employees in
1997, represented a combined turnover of ECU 100
million and produced over 4,2 million doors in that
year.

(107) The

submissions

door producers’

exclusively
from Brazil. The 10 res-
concern the exports
pondents purchased in 1997 around 34 % of the
export volume from Brazil (41 % in value terms).
All Brazil’s hardboard exports to the Community
are eucalyptus-based hardboards. The Community
door producers point out that there are no euca-
lyptus
the
complainant Community producers. They therefore
claim that it cannot be in the Community interest
to impose anti-dumping measures on imports of a
product which is not even produced by the
Community industry.

hardboard manufacturers

among

The door manufacturers also confirmed the claim
already mentioned in the ‘Like product’ section
above,
that eucalyptus hardboards have certain
natural advantages which make those boards par-
ticularly well-suited to the production of high-
quality lacquered doors. Although there is produc-
tion of eucalyptus hardboard among the hardboard
producers which are not party to the complaint
leading to the initiation of the present proceeding,
their volume of output is said to be not sufficient
to satisfy Community demand for eucalyptus hard-
board.

2 %. At 20 %,
the rejection rate for door-skin
output made from non-eucalyptus hardboards adds
what are claimed to be unacceptable costs to the
door-production process.

The Commission has examined these arguments.

(108) As stated above in the ‘Like product’ section, the
Commission has concluded that Brazilian hard-
board is a like product with Community-produced
hardboard. Furthermore, the Community interest
investigation revealed that the proportion accoun-
ted for by hardboard in the door manufacturers’
costs of production, was 9 % on a weighted average
basis. The hardboard raw material therefore does
not account for a major proportion of the door
manufacturers’ costs. These proportions indicate
that an average duty rate of approximately 30 % in
respect of Brazil may have a maximum impact of a
3 % increase in the cost of production of Com-
munity door producers. It should also be borne in
mind that the investigation showed that in value
terms 54 % of these users’ hardboard purchases
were from Brazil. The final impact on the sales
prices of lacquered doors therefore is expected to
be less than 3 %, even assuming that any increase
in cost caused by the duty is fully passed on, which
is possible given the information on the profitab-
ility of Community lacquered doors manufacturers
available to the Commission at this stage.

claim that

Any cost and price increase, however,
is not
expected to be disproportionate to the benefits
expected to accrue to the Community industry
from the removal of the injury caused by dumping.
It should also be added that, while the door manu-
the use of Community-
facturers
an
too costly to be
produced hardboard is
economic alternative,
the Community industry
asserts that, although it does not produce euca-
lyptus hardboard, it does produce other types of
hardboard that could compete in the manufacture
of
at prices undistorted by
dumping.

lacquered doors

the quality necessary for

The lacquered door manufacturers further claimed
that
the Community industry does not produce
their
hardboard of
lacquered-door manufacturing requirements. Their
stringent quality controls entail a certain rate of
rejection of their door-skin production. This rejec-
tion rate reaches 20 % if they use Community-
produced hardboards made with alternative hard-
wood species for their lacquered door-skin produc-
tion. If
they use eucalyptus hardboard for their
door-skin production, this rejection rate drops to

6. Effect of non-imposition of measures

against imports from Brazil

(109) As mentioned at recital 107, only around 34 % of
the export volume from Brazil
(41 % in value
terms) was purchased by the 10 producers of
lacquered doors who responded to the users’ ques-
tionnaire. Since these producers claim to represent
around 90 % of the lacquered-doors market, it has

6. 8. 98

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 218/35

lacquered-door market.

to be concluded that about two-thirds of the Bra-
zilian exports are destined for other sectors than
the
sectors,
dumped eucalyptus hardboard competes even more
strongly with hardboard produced by the Com-
munity industry.

In these

to these sectors

The Brazilian exports
include
offcuts which are sometimes sold at very low prices,
substantially undercutting the Community produc-
tion of the same type, with a strong destabilising
effect on the low end of the market. At the same
time, with the dumping of high-quality products,
they are exerting a downward pressure on the
prices at the high end of the market.

Thus, if no measures are imposed on Brazil, the
majority of their exports will continue to under-
mine the prices of the Community industry, which
will not be able to benefit fully from the price
increase induced by the measures imposed on the
other countries concerned.

At the same time, the Brazilian exporting produ-
cers would however benefit from the price increase
of imports subject to measures, since users would
be able to buy a better quality board from Brazil at
about the same price as hardboard from one of the
other exporting countries of average quality subject
to anti-dumping measures, and therefore partly
divert demand towards Brazil. The overall effective-
ness of the measures would in this way be seriously
weakened.

The non-imposition of measures could thus lead to
a claim by the other exporting countries of dis-
criminatory treatment in favour of Brazil. Indeed,
imports from Brazil have been found to be dumped
and to have caused injury, as has also been es-
tablished for the other countries subject to invest-
igation.

7. Trade distorting effects

(110) Considering the fact that the Community industry
had a market share of 26 % during the investiga-
tion period, and that imports from other countries
not subject to investigation had a 16 % share, the
imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures is
not expected to lead to the creation of a dominant
position of
the Community industry on the
Community market. Alternative sources of supply
to the Community, either from Community hard-
board producers not participating in the pro-
ceeding, or from third countries, represent half the
Community market and will continue unaffected
by the measures.

8. Conclusion on Community interest

(111) The dumped imports from the countries concerned
were found to have caused injury to the Com-
munity industry, and the Commission finds that,
for the foregoing reasons, it is in the overall interest
of
the Community to impose provisional anti-
dumping measures.

The above conclusion also applies to imports of
eucalyptus hardboard from Brazil. In particular, the
non-imposition of measures against Brazil would
risk substantially undermining the benefits for the
Community industry expected from the imposition
of measures against the other countries concerned.

G. PROVISIONAL MEASURES

(112) On the basis of the conclusions on dumping and
injury set out above, the Commission considered
the level of the provisional measures to be adopted.
For this purpose, account has been taken of the
dumping margins found and of the amount of the
duty necessary to eliminate the injury sustained by
the Community industry.

1. Injury elimination level

(113)

to

In order to prevent further injury being caused by
the dumped imports, the Commission considers it
necessary
anti-dumping
adopt provisional
measures. For the purpose of determining the level
of these measures, the Commission took account of
the fact
the weighted average Community
producers’ price on the Community market
declined significantly over the period 1993 to 1997,
in order to meet the price levels of the dumped
imports and that, consequently, the prices of the
dumped imports should be increased to a non-
injurious level.

that

type-by-type basis,

The necessary price increase was determined on
the basis of a comparison of the weighted average
import price, on a
a cif
Community frontier duty-paid level, with the
Community industry’s weighted average cost of
production per unit on an ex-works basis plus a
7 % profit margin. The investigation established
that a profit margin of 7 % should be regarded as
representing an appropriate minimum, taking into
account the need for long-term investment in what
is a capital-intensive industry, and the amount
which the Community industry could reasonably
be expected to make in the absence of injurious
dumping.

L 218/36

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

6. 8. 98

The resulting amount necessary to remove the
injury, or injury margin, was established for each of
the exporting producers concerned as a result of
this comparison and was expressed as a percentage
of the cif value of their exports to the Community.

the undertaking has been accepted, the exemption
should be conditional on the presentation to
Member States’ customs services of a valid ‘Under-
taking invoice’ clearly identifying the producer and
containing the information listed in the Annex.

2. Provisional duties

(114) According to Article 7(2) of the Basic Regulation,
the level of the provisional duty should be equal to
the margin of dumping or the amount necessary to
remove the injury, whichever is lower.

in all

For all companies investigated in Bulgaria, Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Russia the injury
than the
margin was
dumping margin found. Consequently, the provi-
sional duties for the companies investigated in the
above mentioned countries should be based on the
dumping margin found.

instances higher

(116) The Commission points out that in the event of a
breach or withdrawal of the undertaking an anti-
dumping duty may be imposed, pursuant to Article
8(9) and (10) of the Basic Regulation.

(117) Furthermore, it should be noted that, in accordance
with Article 8(6) of the Basic Regulation, the in-
vestigation of dumping,
injury and Community
interest will be completed, notwithstanding the ac-
ceptance of undertakings during the course of the
investigation.

H. FINAL PROVISIONS

For the two Brazilian companies investigated the
injury margins were lower
than the dumping
margin found. Therefore, the provisional duties for
the Brazilian companies investigated should be
based on the injury margins.

(118)

In the interests of sound administration, a period
should be fixed in which the parties concerned
may make their views known in writing and
request a hearing. Furthermore, it should be stated
that all findings made for the purpose of this Regu-
lation are provisional and may have to be recon-
sidered for the purpose of any definitive measures
which the Commission may propose,

3. Undertakings

(115) Some producers in Brazil, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania and Poland have offered price under-
takings in accordance with Article 8(1) of the Basic
Regulation. The Commission considers that
the
undertakings offered by the exporting producers
concerned could be accepted provided that they
cover a reduced number of product types and only
up to a certain quantity threshold. Indeed, without
these two conditions effective monitoring would
not be practicable and companies would be en-
couraged to circumvent
the undertaking by de-
claring as covered by the undertaking product types
outside its scope. The undertakings offered by some
companies correspond to the above conditions and
can therefore be accepted.

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.
A provisional anti-dumping duty is imposed on
imports of hardboard, defined as wet-processed fibreboard
of wood or other ligneous materials, whether or not
bonded with resins or other organic substances and with a
density exceeding 0,8 g/cm3, currently classifiable under
CN codes ex 4411 11 00 and ex 4411 19 00 (TARIC
codes 4411 11 00 * 10 and 411 19 00 * 10) originating in
Brazil, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and
Russia.

To ensure that the quantity of imports of the hard-
board types exempted from the ad valorem duty
does not exceed the quantity in respect of which

The rate of the provisional duty to the net free-at-
2.
Community-frontier prices before duty for the product
concerned manufactured by the companies listed below
shall be as follows:

6. 8. 98

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 218/37

Country

Company

Rate
of duty
(%)

TARIC
additional
code

Brazil

Duratex SA

Others

Bulgaria

Fazerles AD

Others

Estonia

AS Repo Vabrikud

Others

Latvia

AS ‘Bolder(cid:131)ja’

Others

Lithuania

JSC Grigiskes

Others

Poland

Alpex-Karlino SA

Ekoplyta SA

Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych SA w Przemyslu

Koniecpolskie Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych SA

Zaklady Plyt Pilsiniowych SA w Krosnie
Odrzanskim

Others

Russia

8460

8900

8461

8900

8462

8900

8477

8900

8478

8900

8479

8480

8481

8494

8495

8900

23,1

28,2

7,1

7,2

6,0

6,0

5,8

5,8

11,4

11,4

22,4

18,6

9,1

11,4

11,8

37,8

31,1

Unless otherwise specified, the provision in force

3.
concerning customs duties shall apply.

accepted, and provided that the conditions of paragraph 2
are met.

4.
The release of the products referred to in paragraph
1 for free circulation in the Community shall be subject
to the provision of a security, equivalent to the amount of
the provisional duty.

Article 2

2. When the declaration for release for free circulation
is presented, exemption from the duty shall be condi-
tional upon presentation to the competent Member State’s
customs services of a valid ‘Undertaking invoice’ issued by
one of the companies listed in paragraph 3. The Under-
taking invoice, the essential elements of which are listed
in the Annex, shall conform to the requirements for such
invoices set out
in the undertaking accepted by the
Commission.

1. Notwithstanding Article 1, the provisional duty shall
not apply to imports of hardboard produced and directly
exported and invoiced to an importing company in the
Community by the companies listed in paragraph 3, in
respect of which the price undertakings offered are hereby

3.
Imports accompanied by an Undertaking invoice
shall be declared under the following TARIC additional
codes:

L 218/38

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

6. 8. 98

Country

Company

Brazil

Duratex SA

Eucatex SA

Bulgaria

Fazerles AD

Lessoplast AD

Estonia

AS Repo Vabrikud

Latvia

AS ‘Bolder(cid:131)ja’

Lithuania

JSC Grigiskes

Poland

Alpex-Karlino SA

Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych w Czarnej Wojdie

Ekoplyta SA

Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych SA w Przemyslu

Koniecpolskie Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych SA

Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych SA w Krosnie Odrzanskim

TARIC
additional
code

8842

8844

8496

8497

8498

8499

8510

8511

8512

8513

8545

8546

8547

Article 3

Pursuant

1.
to Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No
384/96 and without prejudice to Article 20(2) and (3) of
that Regulation the interested parties which made them-
selves known within the time limit specified in the notice
of initiation may make their views known in writing and
apply to be heard orally by the Commission within one
month of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

Pursuant

to Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No
2.
384/96,
the parties concerned may comment on the
application of this Regulation within one month of the
date of its entry into force.

Article 4

for each release for free circulation, the year and month of
import, the CN, TARIC and TARIC additional codes, the
type of measure, the country of origin, the quantity, the
value, the amount of the anti-dumping duty, if any, and
the Member State of import.

Article 5

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its
publication in the Official Journal of the European
Communities.

Member States’ reports to the Commission pursuant to
Article 14(6) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, shall indicate

Article 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of six
months.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member
States.

Done at Brussels, 5 August 1998.

For the Commission

Leon BRITTAN

Vice-President

6. 8. 98

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 218/39

ANNEX

Elements to be indicated in the Undertaking invoice referred to in Article 2(2)

1. The ‘Product Reporting Code’ (as established in the undertaking offered by the producing exporter in

question);

2. The exact description of the goods, including:

— the ‘Company Product Code’ (CPC); whether the hardboard is unworked or worked; the thickness and
the precise measures of the panel, indicating in brackets whether it has standard measures (STA) or
cut-to-size ones (CTS),

— CN code,

— the TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice may be customs cleared at Com-

munity borders (as specified in the Regulation),

— quantity (to be given in m2);

3. The description of the terms of the sale, including:

— price per square meter (1),

— the applicable payment terms,

— the applicable delivery terms,

— total discounts and rebates;

4. Name of the importer to which the invoice is issued directly by the company;

5. The name of the official of the company that has issued the Undertaking invoice and the following

signed declaration:

‘I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for direct export to the European Community of the goods
covered by this invoice is being made within the scope and under the terms of the undertaking
offered by . . . [company], and accepted by the European Commission through Regulation (EC) No
1742/98. I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.’

(1) For Undertaking invoices issued by the Latvian exporting producer AS ‘Bolder(cid:131)ja’, in case of sales via sales agents
established in the Community the price per m2 may appear on an additional invoice issued by the agent instead of on the
Undertaking invoice issued by AS ‘Bolder(cid:131)ja’. If that is the case, the Undertaking invoice should also mention the name
of the agent.