98/730/EC: Commission Decision of 8 December 1998 concerning applications submitted by Rubycon UK for the refund of anti-dumping duties collected on imports of certain large electrolytic aluminium capacitors originating in Japan (notified under document number C(1998) 3542) (Only the English text is authentic)
Date: 1998-12-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Japan, United Kingdom, anti-dumping duty, electronic component, import, redemption

22. 12. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 346/57

COMMISSION

COMMISSION DECISION

of 8 December 1998

concerning applications submitted by Rubycon UK for the refund of anti-
dumping duties collected on imports of certain large electrolytic aluminium
capacitors originating in Japan

(notified under document number C(1998) 3542)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(98/730/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of
22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports
from countries
the European
Community (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No
905/98 (2), and in particular Article 11(8) thereof,

not members

of

After consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

A. PROCEDURE

(3)

(1)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 3482/92 (3) imposed
a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of large
electrolytic
aluminium capacitors with a CV
product (capacitance multiplied by rated voltage)
between 18 000 and 310 000 micro-coulombs at a
voltage of 160 V or more, and with a diameter of
19mm or more and a length of 20 mm or more
(hereinafter referred to as LAECs) originating in
Japan. The rate of definitive duty applicable to
imports of the product manufactured by Rubycon
Corporation, Ina Nagano (hereinafter referred to as
Rubycon Japan) was set at 30,1 %. This was the
level of duty in force in respect of the imports for
which a refund is claimed.

December 1996 by a notice published in the Offi-
cial Journal of the European Communities (4). The
Commission sought and verified all the informa-
tion it considered necessary and made verification
visits to the premises of Rubycon Japan and of its
subsidiary in the United Kingdom, Rubycon UK
within the framework of the review which covered
the period from 1 October 1995 to 30 September
1996. The review was concluded by Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 2593/97 (5) which determined that
the dumping margin of Rubycon Japan for the
product concerned during the investigation period
was 4,2 % and reduced the anti-dumping duty
accordingly.

On 28 August 1996 and 3 February 1997 Rubycon
Japan’s subsidiary in the United Kingdom (herein-
after referred to as the applicant) submitted applica-
tions for the refund of GBP [ . . . ] (6) (57 transac-
tions in total). The refund claim corresponds to
anti-dumping duties paid on imports of LAECs
originating in Japan released for free circulation in
the United Kingdom in the period from 26
February 1996 to 3 December 1996. The goods for
which a refund is claimed were invoiced by
Rubycon Japan between 19 January 1996 and 25
October 1996.

(2)

On 28 August 1996 Rubycon Japan submitted a
request for an interim review (hereinafter referred
initiated on 17
to as

the review) which was

(4)

The applicant received disclosure of the essential
facts and considerations on the basis of which it
was intended to adopt this Decision. The applicant
made no comment.

(1) OJ L 56, 6. 3. 1996, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 128, 30. 4. 1998, p. 18.
(3) OJ L 353, 3. 12. 1992, p. 1.

(4) OJ C 381, 17. 12. 1996, p. 7.
(5) OJ L 351, 23. 12. 1997, p. 6.
(6) Business secret.

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

L 346/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22. 12. 98

Since the merits of the refund applications which
are within the scope of this Decision as defined in
recital 7 are dependent in their entirety on the
findings of the review, the applications should be
considered to be duly substantiated by evidence
within the meaning of the fourth subparagraph of
Article 11(8) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (herein-
after referred to as the Basic Regulation) from the
date on which the findings of the review were
published in the Official Journal of the European
Communities, that is 23 December 1997.

between the determination of duties to be levied
and the submission of the applications for refund
was not respected with regard to those two transac-
tions.

(10)

The applications in respect of the other transac-
tions should be considered as admissible since they
were introduced in conformity with the relevant
provisions of the Basic Regulation, in particular in
respect of time limits.

B. ARGUMENTS OF THE APPLICANT

E. MERITS OF THE APPLICATIONS

The applicant claims that the dumping margin in
respect of the LAECs released into free circulation
in the Community during the period from 26
February 1996 to 3 December 1996 for which anti-
dumping duties were paid was significantly lower
than the applicable duty rate of 30,1 %.

C. SCOPE OF THIS DECISION

The applications in respect of 52 transactions on
which anti-dumping duties of GBP [ . . . ] were paid
relate to invoices issued within the investigation
period set for that review (that is from 1 October
1995 to 30 September 1996). Since these transac-
tions fall within the investigation period of the
review, the merits of the refund applications should
be established on the basis of the results of the
review investigation in accordance with the fourth
subparagraph of Article 11(8) of the Basic Regula-
tion.

This Decision does not concern itself with the
applications in respect of the remaining five trans-
actions totalling GBP [ . . . ] of anti-dumping duties.
These will be dealt with by another Decision
following the conclusions of a separate review, not
yet concluded, which was initiated on 3 December
1997 by a notice published in the Official Journal
to a
of
request from the Federation for Appropriate Re-
medial Anti-Dumping (FARAD).

the European Communities (1)

further

D. ADMISSIBILITY

(9)

The applications are inadmissible in respect of two
import transactions totalling GBP [ . . . ] of anti-
six
dumping duties because the time-limit of
the Basic Regulation
months prescribed by

(1) OJ C 365, 3. 12. 1997, p. 5.

(11)

The Commission considers that the information
the review, whose investigation
and findings of
covered the period from 1 October 1995 to 30
September 1996, should be used in this instance in
accordance with the fourth subparagraph of Article
11(8) of the Basic Regulation, to determine whether
and to what extent a refund is justified for the
import
invoiced by
Rubycon Japan between 1 October 1995 and 30
September 1996 (see recital 7).

transactions which were

(12) As mentioned above, the review determined that
the dumping margin for the product concerned
exported by Rubycon Japan in the period of invest-
igation was 4,2 %. As a result of the comparison
with the duty applied, an amount of GBP [ . . . ] is
refundable to the applicant and the application
should be rejected in so far as concerns
the
remaining GBP [ . . . ],

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

1.
The refund applications submitted by Rubycon UK
for the period from 26 February 1996 to 3 December
1996 are granted in respect of GBP [ . . . ].

The refund applications are rejected in respect of

2.
GBP [ . . . ].

Article 2

The amount set in Article 1(1) shall be refunded by the
United Kingdom.

22. 12. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 346/59

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
and Rubycon UK, Aqua House, The Runway, South Ruislip, Middlesex HA4 6SE, United
Kingdom.

Done at Brussels, 8 December 1998.

For the Commission

Leon BRITTAN

Vice-President