Commission Regulation (EC) No 617/2000 of 16 March 2000 imposing provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Algeria, Belarus, Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine and accepting, on a provisional basis, an undertaking offered by an exporting producer in Algeria
Date: 2000-03-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, dumping, import, organic fertiliser, third country

24.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 75/3

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 617/2000

of 16 March 2000

imposing provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate
originating in Algeria, Belarus, Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine and accepting, on a provisional basis,
an undertaking offered by an exporting producer in Algeria

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 not members of the European Community (1), and in
particular Article 7 thereof,

(5)

(6)

The Commission sent questionnaires
to all parties
known to be concerned. Replies were received from 10
complainant Community producers, seven exporting
producers, and 13 importers in the Community.

The Commission sought and verified all the information
deemed necessary for a provisional determination of
dumping and injury and carried out verifications at the
premises of the following companies:

After consulting the Advisory Committee,

a) Complainant Community producers

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

A. PROCEDURE

On 26 June 1999, the Commission announced, by a
notice published in the Official Journal of the European
Communities (2) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘notice of
initiation’), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding
with regard to imports into the Community of solutions
of urea and ammonium nitrate (UAN), originating in
Algeria, Belarus, Lithuania, Russia, the Slovak Republic,
and Ukraine.

The proceeding was initiated following a complaint
lodged by the European Fertiliser Manufacturers Associa-
tion (EFMA) on behalf of a major proportion of
Community
contained
evidence of dumping of the product concerned and of
material injury resulting therefrom, which was consid-
ered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.

producers.

complaint

The

The Commission officially advised the complainant
Community producers, exporting producers and import-
ers, suppliers and users known to be concerned as well
the
as associations concerned and representatives of
exporting countries, and the EU-Lithuania and EU-
Slovak Republic Association Councils of the opening of
the proceeding. Interested parties were given an oppor-
tunity to make their views known in writing and to
request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice
of initiation.

In order to allow exporting producers in Russia to
submit a claim for market economy status or individual
treatment,
the Commission sent
market economy status/individual treatment claim forms
to the Russian exporting producers known to be
concerned.

they so wished,

if

Claims for market economy status were received from
two exporting producers.

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 181, 26.6.1999, p. 27.

1. Agrolinz Melamin GmbH, ADM, Linz, Austria,

2. DSM Agro BV, Sittard, Netherlands,

3. Fertiberia SA, Madrid, Spain,

4. Grande Paroisse SA, Paris, France,

5. Hydro Agri Chafers,

Immingham, United

Kingdom,

6. Hydro Agri France, Nanterre, France,

7. Hydro Agri Rostock, Rostock, Germany,

8. Hydro Agri Sluiskil BV, Sluiskil, Netherlands,

9. Kemira Agro Rozenburg BV, Rotterdam, Nether-

lands,

10. SKW Stickstoffwerke

Piesteritz, Wittenberg,

Germany.

b) Exporting producers from the countries concerned

1. JSC Achema, Jonava, Lithuania,

2. Duslo AS, Sala, Slovak Republic,

3. JSC Nevinnomyssky Azot, Nevinnomyssk, Russia,

4. JSC Novolon, Moscow, Russia.

c) Importers

1. Agrobaltic, Rostock, Germany,

2. Champagne Fertilisants SA Reims, France,

3. Common Market

Fertilisers

(CMF), Brussels,

Belgium,

4. Evertrade, Paris, France,

5. Francefert SA Le Chesnay, France,

6. Helm Dungemittel GmbH, Hamburg, Germany,

7. Helm Engrais France, Puteaux, France,

8. UNCAA, Paris, France,

9. Wittraco, Hamburg, Germany.

L 75/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.3.2000

(7)

(8)

(9)

The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1
June 1998 to 31 May 1999 (hereinafter referred to as
‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of
injury covered the period from 1995 to the end of the
investigation period.

the specific circumstances
and taking into account
affecting this company, the Commission none the less
decided to use data from the company where it was
considered to be sufficiently reliable, and in so far as it
did not materially affect the outcome.

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

1. Product concerned

The product concerned is a solution of urea and
ammonium nitrate, a liquid fertiliser commonly used in
It consists of a mixture of urea and
agriculture.
ammonium nitrate and water. The water content
is
approximately 70 % of the mixture (depending on the
nitrogen content), the remaining part consisting equally
of urea and ammonium nitrate. The nitrogen (N) content
is the most significant ‘feature’ of the product, and it can
vary between 28 % and 32 %. Such variation can be
obtained by adding more or less water to the solution.
Most of the imported UAN was 32 % N, which is more
concentrated, and therefore cheaper to ship. However,
whatever their nitrogen content, all solutions of urea
and ammonium nitrate are considered to have the same
basic physical and chemical characteristics and therefore
constitute a single product for the purpose of this invest-
igation. The product concerned falls within CN code
3102 80 00.

2. Like product

UAN is a pure commodity product, and its quality and
basic physical and chemical characteristics are identical
whatever the country of origin. The product produced
and sold in the Community has thus been found to be a
like product, within the meaning of Article 1(4) of Regu-
lation (EC) No 384/96 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘basic Regulation’) to that imported from the countries
concerned, in that it has the same basic physical and
chemical characteristics and essentially the same uses.

C. DUMPING

1. Algeria

(11)

(12)

In the absence of domestic sales, normal value was
constructed, in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic
Regulation, on the basis of the cost of manufacturing,
selling, general and
plus a reasonable amount
administrative (SG & A) costs, and for profit.

for

For the purposes of calculating the cost of manufac-
turing, the raw material costs reported by the company
were used. These costs account for a high proportion of
the total cost of production of UAN. Other manufac-
turing costs, and the SG & A costs, were not considered
suffiently reliable (see recital 10) and so the Commission
had recourse to the figures given in the complaint,
which were considered reasonable. The only alternative,
to use the figures reported by the Slovak producer,
would not have been appropriate given the fundamental
differences in the production system and in company
structure between the two producers. Finally, a reason-
able margin for profit of 5 % was added, this being
the producer could reasonably
considered the profit
have expected to achieve had sufficient sales of
the
product concerned been made on its domestic market.

b) Export price

(13)

The export price was established on the basis of the
prices actually paid or payable for the product when
sold for export to the Community, in accordance with
Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

c) Comparison

(14) A comparison between the constructed normal value
and the export price at an exworks level was made. For
that purpose, adjustments were made to the export price
for differences in transport, insurance, handling, loading
and ancillary costs as provided for in Article 2(10) of the
basic Regulation.

d) Dumping margin

a) Normal value

(10)

The sole Algerian exporting producer, Fertalge Indus-
tries,
replied to the questionnaire. Although the
company had acted to the best of its ability, the infor-
mation provided was far from ideal. More specifically,
many of the figures the exporting producer provided for
the cost of production could not be thoroughly verified,
not least because a proper accounting system was only
introduced in 1999, half way through the IP. However,
in view of Algeria's special situation as a developing
country, and in accordance with Article 15 of the Agree-
ment on implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994,

(15)

the dumping margin for

In accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic
Regulation,
the exporting
producer concerned was established on the basis of a
comparison of the constructed normal value with the
weighted average export price. Expressed as a percentage
of the cif Community frontier price (based on Eurostat
figures), the provisional dumping margin for the sole
Algerian exporting producer is 13,3 %.

Since the sole known exporting producer accounted for
all Algerian exports of the product concerned to the
Community, the Commission considers that the residual
dumping margin should be set at the same level.

24.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 75/5

2. Lithuania

a) Normal value

Since domestic sales of the product concerned during
the IP represented less than 5 % of export sales, normal
value had to be constructed. In accordance with Article
2(3) of the basic Regulation, constructed normal value
was calculated by adding to the exporter's cost of manu-
facturing an amount for SG & A costs and for profit. In
the
the absence of representative domestic sales of
product concerned, the amount for SG & A costs was
established on the basis of the producer's total domestic
SG & A costs for the same general category of products
(fertilisers),
in accordance with Article 2(6)(b) of the
basic Regulation. Finally, a margin for profit of 5 % was
added, this being considered the profit the producer
could reasonably have expected to achieve had sufficient
sales of the product been made on its domestic market.

weighted average export price. Expressed as a percentage
of the cif Community frontier price, the provisional
dumping margin for
the sole Lithuanian exporting
producer is 7,6 %.

Since the sole known exporting producer accounted for
all Lithuanian exports of the product concerned to the
Community, the Commission considers that the residual
dumping margin should he set at the same level.

3. Slovak Republic

(20)

In view of the injury findings, according to which it has
been provisionally concluded that imports originating in
the Slovak Republic have not had a material impact on
the injury caused to the Community industry (see recital
60), no dumping calculations were made.

b) Export price

4. Russia, Belarus and Ukraine

(16)

(17)

For those sales made to independent customers in the
Community, the export price was established on the
the prices actually paid or payable for the
basis of
product when sold for export to the Community,
in
accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation. For
sales made via a related importer, the export price was
constructed on the basis of resale prices to independent
customers. Adjustments were made for all costs incurred
between importation and resale by that importer and for
the profit margin found in the investigation to have
been attained by independent importers of the product
concerned, in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic
Regulation.

(21)

c) Comparison

(18)

The normal value and the export price were compared
on an ex-works basis. For that purpose, adjustments
were made for differences
insurance,
loading and ancillary costs, as provided for in Article
2(10) of the basic Regulation.

in transport,

d) Dumping margin

(19)

In accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic
Regulation,
the exporting
producer concerned was established on the basis of a
comparison of constructed normal value with the

the dumping margin for

a) Analogue country

to Article 2(7)(a) of

Pursuant
the basic Regulation,
normal value for Belarus and Ukraine has to be estab-
lished on the basis of the price or constructed value in a
market economy third country or ‘analogue country’.
The same applies to the Russian exporting producers,
since none of them qualified for market economy status
as defined in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation (see
recital 24). In the notice of initiation, the United States
of America was proposed as an appropriate third
country. All parties were granted 10 days to comment
on the proposed choice. Comments were submitted by
three Russian companies jointly, by a fourth Russian
company
sole Belarussian exporting
producer. All of them criticised the proposed choice of
the USA and proposed Lithuania as a more suitable
analogue country.

and by

the

The relevant arguments put forward were:

— the higher costs of raw materials (especially natural
gas) in the USA and big differences in costs among
US producers, depending on their geographical loca-
tion, which could lead to inconsistent results,

— the similarity of equipment and production process
(integrated production) between Lithuania, on the
one hand, and Russia, Belarus and Ukraine on the
other, unlike the situation in the USA,

— Lithuania was subject to the same investigation.

L 75/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.3.2000

The Commission none the less approached known
producers of the product in the USA but none of them
was willing to cooperate in the investigation.

(unchanged between 1997 and the IP) in Slovak crowns
to a Slovak State-owned intermediary.

The Commission informed all interested parties of the
refusal of companies in the USA to cooperate and asked
them to comment on Lithuania as possible analogue
country. EFMA raised objections to this proposal, mainly
based on the allegedly very cheap gas prices paid by the
Lithuanian exporter and the distortions allegedly carried
over from its former non-market economy status.
It
then claimed that one US producer would cooperate.
The Commission again approached this US producer but
it confirmed that it was not willing to cooperate in the
investigation.

EFMA then proposed the Slovak Republic.

(22)

The Commission then examined Lithuania and the
Slovak Republic as possible market economy third coun-
tries, and took into consideration the following factors.

P r o d u c t i o n

In Lithuania, and in the Slovak Republic, there is only
one producer. Both of these are integrated producers,
although the Slovak facilities appear to be less modern.

Lithuania is closer to Russia and, having been part of the
former USSR,
its production process and company
organisation are closer to those in Russia, Belarus and
Ukraine than to the Slovak Republic.

For all the above reasons, the Commission provisionally
concluded that, in the absence of any alternative, Lithu-
ania would be a reasonable choice of market economy
third country, in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the
basic Regulation.

b) Russia

i) Market economy status

(23) Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation states that,

in
anti-dumping investigations concerning imports from
Russia, normal value shall be determined in accordance
with Article 2(1) to (6) for those producers which can
show they meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c)
i.e. that market economy conditions prevail in respect of
the manufacture and sale of the like product concerned.

(24) As mentioned above, claims for market economy status
were received from two producers. The Commission
sought and verified all the information deemed neces-
sary for the purposes of a determination of market
economy status and carried out verifications at their
premises.

The claims had to be rejected for the following main
reasons:

D o m e s t i c m a r k e t c o n d i t i o n s

B a r t e r

The sole Lithuanian producer did not have repres-
entative domestic sales, which would mean normal value
having to be constructed. The Slovak producer did have
domestic sales, but dominated the local UAN market,
holding 85 % of it.

In addition, many Slovak customers have cash-flow
problems and a number of transactions involve barter
(affecting between 10 % and 20 % of the turnover of the
product concerned). It should be noted that the use of
barter
rejecting market
the grounds for
economy status for two Russian exporters (see recital
24). In contrast, no use of barter could be detected in
Lithuania.

is one of

E n e r g y

Both producers purchase gas
the
Russian supplier. However, the Lithuanian producer pays
Gazprom a price which varies in accordance with
changes in the published cif Northern Europe price for
ammonia, whilst the Slovak company pays a fixed price

from Gazprom,

Both companies engaged in barter trade. company A,
which in fact was found to have purchased UAN from a
related producer, paid for it on several occasions by
delivering a product used by its supplier to produce
compound fertilisers. Company B had been instructed by
regional authorities to deliver UAN to farmers, the value
of which would be offset against
its tax bills. The
farmers were to deliver grain to a State-owned agricul-
tural consortium for use by the Regional Food Fund.
Nearly half of company B's domestic sales of UAN were
accounted for in this way.

P r i c e s

Company A did not have its own marketing department
and had no influence over export prices. All export sales
were handled by a related trading company. Company
A's domestic sales were made to a related company,
which in turn resold the product on the Russian market.
Since this related company did not cooperate, it was not
possible to examine domestic sales in the light of the
conditions set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regula-
tion.

24.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 75/7

C o s t s a n d i n p u t s

(26)

Company A claimed to purchase urea and ammonium
nitrate from a related company for mixing in its own
production facilities. In fact, it was billed for UAN, not
for its constituents, and thus it is to be considered more
an intermediary than a genuine producer.

E n e r g y

For company B, the cost of energy, i.e. a major input for
the production of UAN, did not reflect market values.
The company reported that, since 1998, a series of
discount schemes had been introduced by Presidential
decree to encourage customers to pay cash for electricity
and gas. For electricity, the cash discounts allowed to
range from 30 % to 50 % and for gas, from 25 % to
50 %, the sole proviso being that the discounted energy
price should not fall below the full primary costs of the
supplier. In other words, and independently of the fact
that these discounts were a clear indication of State
interference in the market, prices did not reflect the full
cost of energy,

let alone its true market value.

A c c o u n t s

Finally, neither company had accounting records inde-
pendently audited in line with international accounting
standards, and there were significant deviations from
those standards in several important areas (e.g. depreci-
ation and fixed asset revaluation rates). Moreover,
it
appeared that the basic purpose of the accounts was to
meet the requirements of the tax authorities and not to
provide a complete picture of the company's situation at
the end of the accounting period.

In view of the above, the Commission determined that
neither company fulfilled all the criteria for granting
market economy status which are set out at Article
2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. In addition, it has been
decided to reject the claims for individual treatment on
the grounds that one company is not an exporting
producer and that the other is not sufficiently free of
State influence.

For one cooperating producer, which sold to indepen-
dent customers in the Community, the export price was
established on the basis of the prices actually paid or
payable for the product when sold for export to the
Community. For the other cooperating producer sales
were made via a related trading company in the Channel
Islands (part of the customs territory of the Community),
and the export price was established by reference to the
resale prices actually paid or payable to it. Adjustments
were made for all costs incurred between importation
and resale by that trader plus a reasonable margin for
profit, based on that found in the investigation to have
been attained by independent importers of the product
concerned, in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic
Regulation.

(27) As far as concerns non-cooperating companies, the cif
value according to Eurostat for Russian imports was
used as a basis for establishing the export price, after
removal of the cooperating companies' exports. This
price was then reduced by an amount corresponding to
the weighted average of the difference between fob and
cif prices charged by the two cooperating companies, in
order to convert it to fob (ex-Russia frontier) level.

(28)

The normal value and export prices were compared on a
fob (ex-exporting country frontier) basis. Adjustments
were made for differences in payment terms, transport,
insurance,
in accordance
with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.

loading and ancillary costs,

iii) Dumping margin

(29)

In accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic
Regulation, the dumping margin for Russia was estab-
lished on the basis of a comparison of constructed
normal value with the weighted average export price.
Expressed as a percentage of the cif Community frontier
the provisional countrywide weighted average
price,
dumping margin is 24,1 %.

The producers concerned and the Community industry
were given an opportunity to comment on the above
findings. No comments were received.

c) Belarus

ii) Normal value, export price and comparison

i) Normal value, export price and comparison

(25)

For both cooperating and non-cooperating Russian
companies normal value was established as described for
Lithuania (see recital 16).

(30) As in the case of Russia, normal value was established as

described at recital 16.

L 75/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.3.2000

The export price was established on the basis of the
prices actually paid or payable for the product when
sold for export to the Community.

in the
lary costs, and for commissions, were made,
absence of any other more reliable information, on the
basis of information contained in the complaint.

The normal value and export prices were compared on a
fob (ex-exporting country frontier) basis. For
that
purpose, adjustments were made for differences in trans-
port, insurance, loading and ancillary costs, in accord-
ance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.

ii) Dumping margin

(31)

In accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic
Regulation, the dumping margin was established on the
basis of a comparison of constructed normal value with
the weighted average export price. Expressed as a
percentage of
the
provisional countrywide dumping margin for Belarus is
33,0 %.

the cif Community frontier price,

d) Ukraine

i) Cooperation

(32)

The Commission sent questionnaires to the two com-
panies mentioned in the complaint. One replied to the
questionnaire within the time limit, stating that it had
not exported to the Community at all during the IP. No
reply was received from the second company. It should
be noted that substantial export quantities originating in
this country are recorded in Eurostat statistics.

iii) Dumping margin

(34)

In accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic
Regulation, the dumping margin was established on the
basis of a comparison of constructed normal value with
the weighted average export price. Expressed as a
percentage of
the
provisional countrywide dumping margin is 38,7 %.

the cif Community frontier price,

D. DEFINITION OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

(35)

(36)

The complainant Community producers represent more
than 85 % of the Community production of UAN solu-
tions and therefore constitute the Community industry
within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of
the basic Regulation.

complainant Community

In this respect, some interested parties have argued that
certain
producers were
importing UAN solutions originating in the countries
concerned and could therefore not be considered as
forming part of the Community production and conse-
quently the Community industry.

The investigation has shown that indeed some com-
plainant Community producers had imported the
product concerned originating in the exporting countries
concerned. It was, however, established that this import
activity does not alter the fact that the primary interest
of these companies was in the own production of UAN
and not in importing. In addition, these imports do not
the
represent any significant part of
importing
the
Community
Community. Finally, the resales of these imports were
made at the same price level as the UAN solutions
manufactured and sold by the complainant Community
producers in the Community.

the sales of
in

producers'

sales

ii) Normal value, export price and comparison

(33) As in the case of Russia and Belarus, normal value was

established as described at recital 16.

Consequently,
it is provisionally concluded that these
Community producers should not be excluded from the
definition of the Community industry.

In the absence of information from the exporting produ-
cers concerning export prices, the Commission made its
findings on the basis of the facts available, in this case
Eurostat figures, in accordance with Article 18 of the
basic Regulation. In order not to reward non-coopera-
tion,
the lowest monthly cif price for exports from
Ukraine was used to establish the export price.

The normal value and export prices were compared on a
fob (ex-exporting country frontier) basis. Adjustments
for differences in transport, insurance, loading and ancil-

E. INJURY

(37) As can be seen below,

the overall situation of

the
Community industry followed an upward trend between
1995 and 1997, from which year onwards it started to
deteriorate. This development should be seen in the light
of the measures introduced against imports of UAN
solutions originating in Poland and Bulgaria (1), which
started to take effect as from 1995.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 3319/94 (OJ L 350, 31.12.1994, p.

20).

24.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 75/9

1. Community consumption

(38)

the remaining Community producers,

The apparent Community consumption was established
on the basis of the sales volumes of the Community
industry on the Community market, the information
contained in the complaint concerning the sales volumes
of
information
provided by the
cooperating exporting producers
concerning their export volume and Eurostat figures for
other third countries. All volumes have been, where
appropriate, adapted so as to correspond to UAN solu-
tions with a nitrogen content of 32 %.

On this basis, Community consumption increased from
3 155 000 tonnes to 3 297 000 tonnes,
i.e. by 4,5 %
between 1995 and the IP. Between 1995 and 1997 it
decreased significantly, to increase rapidly after that year.

2. Imports from the countries concerned (1)

The investigation has shown that both volumes and
market shares of the imports originating in the Slovak
Republic were at the same level in the IP as compared to
1995, unlike the development found in the remaining
countries concerned. Furthermore, import volumes from
the Slovak Republic were the lowest of all countries
concerned during the IP. As to the prices of imports
originating in the Slovak Republic, although they
followed the
countries
trend as
concerned,
they were at a higher level after 1997.
Finally, as opposed to the imports originating in all the
other countries concerned, no price undercutting has
been found for the imports originating in the Slovak
Republic.

the other

same

it

For these reasons,
is provisionally concluded that
imports originating in the Slovak Republic should be
assessed separately from the other imports subject to the
present investigation.

a) Cumulative assessment of

the

effects of

the

imports

concerned

ii) Belarus

(39)

It has firstly been examined whether imports from all
countries concerned should be assessed cumulatively,
taking into account the conditions set out in Article 3(4)
of the basic Regulation. In this respect, the investigation
has shown the following.

i) Slovak Republic

(40) As regards the volume of imports into the Community,
the exporting producer from the Slovak Republic has
argued that this volume was negligible in accordance
with Articles 9(3) and 5(7) of
the basic Regulation.
However, the information provided by this sole Slovak
exporting producer and Eurostat shows that Slovak
exports
the Community
represent around 2 % of
consumption and are therefore not negligible.

the countries concerned in view of

its
This exporting producer has further argued that
exports of UAN solutions should not be cumulated with
the rest of
the
different conditions of competition with respect to the
imports from the other countries concerned, pointing to
the different evolution of prices,
import volumes and
market shares and that imports originating in the Slovak
Republic were competing only with the geographically
closest Community producers.

It is the established practice of the Community institu-
tions, when there are diametrically different market
behaviours between the different countries concerned, to
assess separately the effects that the imports have on the
Community industry.

(1) For confidentiality reasons, given that

the countries
concerned there
figures
contained in this Regulation relating to them will be indexed or
only given approximately.

exporting producer,

is only one

in some of

the

The exporting producer from Belarus argued that its
exports should be decumulated and assessed separately
in view of the different conditions of competition with
respect to the other countries concerned, as evidenced
by the differences in evolution of import volumes and
market shares by comparison to these other countries
concerned.

The investigation has shown that import volumes from
Belarus and the corresponding market shares decreased
between 1995 and 1997, and increased thereafter, and
therefore followed the trend of
the five countries
concerned as a whole. In addition, import volumes were
substantial and the market share was 6,1 % during the
IP. Furthermore, as was the case for the other countries
concerned, the average prices of UAN solutions origin-
ating in Belarus followed a downward trend since 1996.

For these reasons, it is provisionally considered appro-
priate to reject the request for decumulation by the
exporting producer from Belarus and to cumulatively
assess imports from Belarus with those originating in the
other remaining countries concerned.

iii) The remaining countries concerned (Algeria, Lithu-

ania, Russia, and Ukraine)

(41) As to the remaining countries concerned, the dumping
margins found are more than de minimis, the volumes of
imports are not negligible and the cumulative assess-
ment appears appropriate in view of the conditions of
competition both between the imports and between the
imports and the like Community product. This
is
import volumes were
evidenced by the fact
in
substantial and their market share has increased,

that all

L 75/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.3.2000

since 1996. Moreover,

their prices have
particular
considerably decreased since 1996 and they have
undercut the sales prices of the Community industry,
while using the same or similar channels of trade. For
these reasons, it is provisionally concluded that imports
originating in the remaining countries concerned and
Belarus (hereinafter referred to as ‘the five countries
concerned’) should be assessed cumulatively.

b) Volume and market share of dumped imports

i) The five countries concerned

ii) Undercutting

(46)

the prices of

It was examined whether the exporting producers of the
five countries concerned undercut
the
Community industry during the IP. For this analysis, the
cif prices of the exporting producers of UAN solutions
have been duly adjusted to a Community frontier ex-
quay customs-duty paid-level (DEQ) and compared, at
the same level of trade, to the Community producers'
ex-works prices.

The undercutting margins found on this basis per
country, expressed as a percentage of the Community
producers' prices, are as follows:

(42)

countries

increased

concerned

The import volume of UAN solutions originating in the
from around
five
800 000 tonnes to around 1 500 000 tonnes,
i.e. by
around 87 % between 1995 and the IP. It should be
noted that while they decreased between 1995 and
1997, as from that year to the IP they increased by
around 200 %, while between 1997 and the IP, the
Community consumption increased by around 14 %.

The market shares of the imports from the five countries
concerned increased from 26,5 % in 1995 to 44,2 % in
the IP, i.e. by 17,7 percentage points. More particularly,
the market share first decreased between 1995 and
1997 and then more than doubled between 1997 and
the IP.

ii) Slovak Republic

(43)

Imports from the Slovak Republic were at the same level
in the IP as compared to 1995, both in terms of volume
and market shares. Moreover, both import volume and
market share started to decrease sharply after 1997.

c) Prices of dumped imports

i) Price evolution (1)

(48)

— T h e f i v e c o u n t r i e s c o n c e r n e d

(44)

The weighted average import prices of imports origin-
ating in the five countries concerned decreased from
ECU 89,8/t to ECU 67/t, i.e. by 25,4 % between 1995
and the IP. While prices reached a peak in 1996, they
decreased significantly thereafter by 34 %.

Country

Undercutting

Algeria

Belarus

Between 2 % and 6 %

Between 4 % and 8 %

Lithuania

Between 5 % and 10 %

Russia

Ukraine

6,7 %

16,7 %

(47)

In line with the price behaviour and development of
imports of
the Slovak exporting producer discussed
earlier, no price undercutting was found.

3. Situation of the Community industry

a) Production

The Community industry's production of UAN (all
volumes have been adapted, when applicable, so as to
correspond to UAN solutions with a nitrogen content of
32 %) increased by 2,4 % between 1995 and the IP, i.e.
from 1 484 000 tonnes to 1 520 000 tonnes. The most
significant increase took place between 1995 and 1997,
at a time when anti-dumping measures were imposed on
imports of UAN originating in Poland and Bulgaria.
Thereafter, production decreased between 1997 and the
IP by 9,6 %.

— S l o v a k R e p u b l i c

b) Capacity and capacity utilisation rates

(45) As mentioned at recital 40, although the prices of
imports originating in the Slovak Republic followed the
same trend throughout the period as the other countries
concerned, they did not fall as much after 1997 when
the imports concerned significantly increased.

(49)

(1) For the assessment of price trends,

in order to compare coherent
data, only Eurostat data were used, whereas for the calculation of
price undercutting and injury margins,
information provided by
exporting producers was used where available.

total production capacity of

The
the Community
industry was, by and large, stable over the period under
consideration. Capacity utilisation increased from 38 %
in 1995 to 43 % in 1997 and subsequently fell back to
the 1995/1996 level. It should be noted that capacity
utilisation is not a meaningful indicator for this type of
production and industry since it
is affected by the
production of other products which can be produced on
the same production equipment.

24.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 75/11

c) Sales in the Community

(50)

The sales volume of the Community industry increased
by 20,9 % between 1995 and 1997 from 1 446 000
tonnes to 1 748 000 tonnes and then decreased to
1 598 000 tonnes, i.e. by 8,6 % between 1997 and the
IP.

between 1997 and the IP the Community industry lost
around 12 percentage points of market share and the
corresponding sales volume whereas the imports origin-
ating in the five countries concerned gained around 26
percentage points. The investigation has shown that
during the IP, the imports concerned were made at
prices
the
significantly
Community industry.

undercutting

those

of

d) Market share

(51)

The Community industry's market share increased from
45,8 % in 1995 to 60,7 % in 1997 and then decreased
by around 12 percentage points to 48,5 % in the IP.

In terms of price development, the Community industry
managed to increase its average prices between 1995
and 1996. However, their sales prices eroded consider-
ably thereafter. This had a negative impact on its profit-
ability, which substantially deteriorated as from 1997 to
reach a level of –12,2 % during the IP.

e) Prices of the Community industry

(52)

sales price
The Community producers' average net
increased by 3,8 % between 1995 and 1996 from
to ECU 115,5/t and then decreased to
ECU 111,3/t
i.e. a fall by 27,8 %.
ECU 83,4/t in the IP,

f) Profitability

(53)

The weighted average profitability of the Community
industry deteriorated by 17,1 percentage points between
1995 and the IP, from 4,9 % to –12,2 %. In parallel with
the price development, the profitability was highest in
1996 and decreased between that year and the IP, by
18,4 percentage points.

g) Employment

(54)

in the Community

Employment
industry, while
increasing between 1995 and 1996/1997, when it was
at 339 employees in both years, decreased thereafter to
311 employees in the IP, a decrease of 8,3 %.

above deterioration of

The
the
Community industry, in particular since 1997 was such
that it is provisionally concluded that the Community
industry has suffered material

injury in the IP.

situation of

the

F. CAUSATION

1. Introduction

(57) According to Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regula-
tion, the Commission, in order to reach conclusions on
the injury suffered by the Community
the cause of
industry, examined the impact of all known factors and
their consequences on the situation in that industry.
Such analysis ensures that any injury caused by factors
other than dumped imports is not attributed to the
dumped imports.

2. Effect of the dumped imports

h) Investment

a) General

(55)

investments
The Community industry increased its
between 1995 and the IP, with a peak in the year 1998
owing to large investments in preceding production
steps. The most important investments between 1995
and the IP were investments in production facilities for
urea and nitric acid, which are both raw materials for
the production of UAN solutions but are also used for
other purposes
solid
ammonium nitrate and solid urea.

the production of

such as

4. Conclusion on injury

(56) A marked deterioration of

the

situation of

the
Community industry has been found in particular
between 1997 and the IP, when the five countries
concerned were able to expand their export volume to
the Community by around 200 %, also benefiting from
the substantial decrease in market share of other third
that
countries.

In an increasing market

this meant

(58) UAN solutions are a commodity with no difference in
quality or applications between the imported product
and the one produced in the Community. Therefore,
UAN solutions produced in the Community and UAN
solutions imported from the countries concerned are in
direct competition with each other mainly on the basis
of price.

i) The five countries concerned

(59)

Between 1997 and the IP, dumped imports from the five
countries concerned significantly increased in terms of
volume (around 200 %) and of market shares (from
around 18 % to around 44 %) and they undercut the
prices of the Community industry. This coincided with
the deterioration of the situation of the Community
industry in terms of loss of market share, price depres-
sion as well as deteriorating profitability.

L 75/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.3.2000

The dumped imports from the five countries concerned
prevented the Community industry from benefiting from
the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports from
Poland and Bulgaria. In terms of volume, the five coun-
tries concerned basically took over most of the market
shares held previously by Poland and Bulgaria while the
Community industry could only secure a small part of
this share. Furthermore, the significant increase of the
market share of the dumped imports between 1997 and
the IP coincided with the downward trend of the situa-
the Community industry, which lost market
tion of
share.

When faced with low-priced imports originating in the
five countries concerned, the Community industry had
the possibility of either maintaining its prices with a risk
of losing sales volumes, or following the low prices of
dumped imports with negative consequences on profit-
ability. Indeed, as from 1997, the Community industry
substantially lowered its sales prices. This had a negative
impact on its profitability, which became negative. This
clearly illustrates the price sensitivity of the market and
the important
the
exporting producers of the five countries concerned.

the pricing policy of

impact of

It is therefore provisionally concluded that the dumped
imports from the five countries concerned have caused
injury to the Community industry.
material

ii) Slovak Republic

(60) As far as the Slovak Republic is concerned, no price
undercutting has been found. Slovak imports were at the
same level in the IP as compared to 1995. Given the
relatively low import volumes,
the small and stable
market share and the fact that there is no price under-
cutting, it is provisionally concluded that imports origin-
ating in the Slovak Republic have not had an impact to
a degree such as to be classified as material, within the
meaning of Article 3(5) and (6) of the basic Regulation.

3. Effect of other factors

related to the
imports from Bulgaria and Poland.

anti-dumping measures

concerning

Given the decrease in terms of volume and market share
of the imports originating in other third countries, it is
obvious that these imports did not contribute to the
material

injury suffered by the Community industry.

b) Other factors

(62)

The Commission also examined whether factors other
than the abovementioned might have contributed to the
injury suffered by the Community industry, having
regard to, in particular, a contraction in demand or the
changes in the patterns of consumption, developments
in supply and in technology and productivity of the
Community industry.

As to the development of supply, at a worldwide level,
the Chinese decision in April 1997 to ban imports of
urea and to replace them by domestic production led to
a worldwide overcapacity for nitrogen fertilisers. It has
been argued that the subsequent worldwide oversupply
and fall in prices for nitrogen fertilisers has been a major
factor causing the injury suffered by the Community
industry. However, the investigation has shown that the
prices of dumped imports had decreased substantially
even before the Chinese decision. Furthermore,
the
Community industry itself was not directly affected
because it did not export to China. In any event, the
existence or not of a situation of oversupply is no
justification for a significant surge in low-priced dumped
imports.

Concerning the changes in the pattern of consumption,
it has been argued that the increase in set-aside areas of
agricultural farmland led to a reduction in the overall
consumption of fertilisers in the Community. However,
it has been established as set out above that the market
for UAN solutions has steadily increased since 1997. At
the
the
Community industry did not benefit from this expansion
of the market, as opposed to the exporting producers
from the countries concerned.

it has been established that

same

time,

a) Imports from other third countries

(61)

The import volume of UAN solutions from other third
countries decreased from about 669 000 tonnes in 1995
to around 37 000 tonnes in the IP, i.e. by 94,5 %. The
most
important suppliers in this group of countries
during the IP were Mexico and the Czech Republic.
Market shares of the imports from other third countries
decreased from 21,2 % in 1995 to 1,1 % in the IP, i.e. a
decrease of 20,1 percentage points, which is mainly

In relation to the developments in technology and
productivity of the Community industry,
it has been
established that the Community industry has carried out
considerable investments in order not to lose competi-
tiveness.

Thus, it can be concluded that the effect of factors other
than the dumped imports were not such as to break the
link between the dumped imports and the
causal
material
injury suffered by the Community industry
therefrom.

24.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 75/13

4. Conclusion on causation

not able to benefit from the imposition of antidumping
measures on imports originating in Poland and Bulgaria.

(63)

(64)

In view of the coincidence in time between, on the one
hand, the price undercutting established, the significant
market share gained by the dumped imports from the
countries concerned and, on the other hand, the corre-
sponding
the
Community industry, as well as the reduction of its sales
prices and the decline of its profitability, it is provision-
ally concluded that the dumped imports originating in
the five countries concerned have caused material injury
to the Community industry.

loss of market

suffered by

share

G. COMMUNITY INTEREST

1. Preliminary remark

In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation,
the Commission examined whether the imposition of
anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of
the Community as a whole. The determination of the
Community interest was based on an appreciation of all
the
the
Community industry, the importers and traders and the
users of the product concerned to the extent that the
relevant
interested parties submitted the information
requested in this respect.

those of

involved,

interests

various

i.e.

In order to assess the likely impact of the imposition or
non-imposition of measures, the Commission requested
information from all interested parties. The Commission
sent questionnaires to the Community industry, 29
importers/traders, one importers' association and two
associations of users of the product concerned. Thirteen
importers/traders as well as the importers' association
replied. As to the users' associations, none of
them
replied to the questionnaires or submitted any other
information.

On this basis it was examined whether, despite the
the
conclusions on dumping, on the situation of
Community industry and on causation, compelling
reasons exist which would lead to the conclusion that it
is not in the Community interest to impose measures in
this particular case.

Despite this structurally viable background, it cannot be
excluded however, that some companies of this industry
would reduce or even cease their manufacturing activi-
ties for the product concerned in the Community if no
measures against injurious dumping were taken. This
conclusion is justified in view of the duration and extent
losses suffered owing to dumped imports
of financial
(between 1997 and the IP, the Community industry has
suffered increasing losses). Indeed, without measures, the
the dumped imports will
price-depressive effect of
the Community
continue to frustrate all efforts of
industry to achieve a satisfactory margin of profitability.

On the other hand, the imposition of measures would
enable this industry to maintain and restore its activities
in the Community. With the adoption of anti-dumping
measures, overall employment
in the Community in
relation to the product concerned would thus be secured
and even expected to rise.

3. Interest of importers/traders

(66) Almost all importers/traders which replied to the ques-
tionnaire have expressed their opposition to anti-
dumping measures, as these would lower their already
low profit margin and might force some of them to
reduce personnel, to switch to other products or,
in
extreme cases, to cease activity. They claimed that the
Community industry was unlikely to be able to satisfy
demand during the peak season despite the low level of
capacity utilisation. They therefore consider that any
anti-dumping measures would not be in the interest of
the Community, if as a consequence of these measures
imports of UAN solutions would stop completely.

In this respect it should be noted, that, given the level
and nature of the measures proposed, it is considered
that imports will continue to take place, albeit at nonin-
jurious prices. Furthermore, the investigation has estab-
lished that the importers/traders as a rule do not only
deal in UAN solutions but also, to a significant extent, in
it cannot be
other
face negative
excluded that
consequences after
the imposition of anti-dumping
measures.

fertilisers as well. Nevertheless,
importers will

some

2. Interest of the Community industry

(65)

The Community industry has proven to be a structurally
viable industry, able to adapt to the changing conditions
on the market. This has been shown in particular by the
positive development of its situation at a time when
effective competition had been restored after the imposi-
tion in 1994 of anti-dumping measures concerning
imports originating in Bulgaria and Poland and by the
industry's investment
the art production
in state of
capacity. However, owing to the pressure of the dumped
imports on sales prices, in particular since 1997, it was

4. Interest of users

(67) Users of

the product concerned are farmers in the
Community. Demand for nitrogen fertilisers appears to
be relatively inelastic and farmers tend to buy from the
cheapest source available. Farmers therefore have bene-
fited from low prices for UAN solutions in the most
recent agricultural seasons.

L 75/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.3.2000

However, the fact that there has been no cooperation
from user-associations justifies the provisional conclu-
sion that anti-dumping measures will most likely not
have a decisive impact on the users. Were any anti-
dumping measures to be imposed, the cost of UAN
solutions for farmers would indeed be likely to increase.
However, fertilisers represent only a very small part of
total production costs so that
the possible negative
effects on farmers are unlikely to offset the positive
effect of measures against injurious dumping.

Thus, the imposition of anti-dumping duties will be
unlikely to limit the choice of the end users or weaken
competition.

6. Conclusion on Community interest

(69) Given the above reasons, it is provisionally concluded
that there are no compelling reasons against the imposi-
tion of anti-dumping duties.

5. Competition and trade distorting effects

(68) With respect to the effects of possible measures on
competition in the Community, some interested parties
have argued that duties would lead to the disappearance
concerned from the
of
Community market,
considerably weakening
competition, and to an increase in the prices of UAN
solutions.

exporting producers

thus

the

However, some of the exporting producers concerned
will probably continue to sell their products albeit at
non-injurious prices, as they have an increasingly strong
market position. The imposition of anti-dumping duties
on those exporting producers for which higher dumping
and injury margins were established is likely to lead to a
drop in their sales volume and market share. However,
other exporting producers concerned are not expected
to be significantly affected given the level and the nature
of the duties proposed. Finally, it cannot be excluded
that once prices reach a level at which the effects of
injurious dumping are removed,
imports from other
third countries will also be reoriented towards the
Community market. Therefore, it is likely that there will
still be a number of competitors to the Community
producers on the market and in view of
the large
number of producers in the Community, as well as the
transparency of the market, users will continue to have
the
the product
concerned.

choice of different

suppliers of

On the basis of the above, competition will most likely
remain strong after the imposition of anti-dumping
measures. There will be an important number of actors
in the market, which will be able to satisfy the demand.

H. PROVISIONAL MEASURES

1. Injury elimination level

(70)

the conclusions reached with regard to
In view of
injury, causation and Community interest,
dumping,
provisional measures
to
prevent further injury being caused to the Community
industry by the dumped imports.

should be taken in order

For establishing the level of duty, account has been
taken of the level of the dumping margins found and of
the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury
suffered by the Community industry.

sold by

In order to establish the level of duty adequate to
remove injury caused by dumping, injury margins have
been calculated. The necessary price increase was deter-
mined on the basis of a comparison, at the same level of
trade, of the weighted average import price, as estab-
lished for the undercutting calculations, with the non-
injurious price of UAN solutions
the
Community industry on the Community market. The
non-injurious price has been obtained by adding to the
full unit cost of production a profit margin that may
reasonably be reached in the absence of
injurious
dumping. After consideration of various submissions by
the complainants on that issue, the Commission came to
the provisional conclusion that a profit margin of 5 %
would allow the Community industry a profitability that
it could have expected in the absence of the dumped
imports. The difference resulting from this comparison
was then expressed as a percentage of
the total cif
import value.

2. Provisional measures

a) The five countries concerned

(71)

In the light of the foregoing, it is considered that in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic
Regulation a provisional anti-dumping duty should be imposed at the level of the dumping margins
found, except for Belarus for which the duty should be imposed at the level of the injury margin
which is lower. For the reasons set out in recitals 15 and 19, the residual duties for Algeria and
Lithuania have been set at the same level established for the sole producer in each country.

24.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 75/15

In order to ensure the efficiency of the measures and to discourage the price manipulation which has
been observed in some previous proceedings involving the same general category of product, i.e.
fertilisers, it is considered appropriate to impose the duties in the form of a specific amount per
tonne.

On the basis of the above, the provisional duty amounts are as follows:

Country

Dumping margin

Basis for anti-dumping
duty

Amount of duty
(per tonne)

13,3

13,3

33,0

7,6

7,6

24,1

38,7

13,3

13,3

27,8

7,6

7,6

24,1

38,7

EUR 9,42

EUR 9,42

EUR 18,02

EUR 5,19

EUR 5,19

EUR 15,46

EUR 21,47

Algeria

— Fertalge Industries

Belarus

Lithuania

— JSC Achema

Russia

Ukraine

b) Slovak Republic

(72) As imports originating in the Slovak Republic are provisionally considered not to have contributed
to the material
it is provisionally not considered
appropriate to impose any anti-dumping duty on imports of UAN solutions originating in the Slovak
Republic at this stage of the proceeding. However, the Commission will continue to investigate the
matter before arriving at a definitive determination.

injury suffered by the Community industry,

3. Undertakings

(73)

(74)

(75)

(76)

The exporting producer in Algeria has offered a price undertaking in accordance with Article 8(1) of
the basic Regulation. The Commission considers that the undertaking offered by the exporting
producer concerned can be accepted since it eliminates the injurious effect of
the dumping.
Furthermore, the regular and detailed reports which the company undertook to provide to the
Commission will allow an effective monitoring.

In order to ensure the effective respect and monitoring of the undertaking, when the request for
release for free circulation pursuant to the undertaking is presented, exemption from the duty is
conditional on presentation to the relevant Member States' customs' services of a valid undertaking
invoice issued by the exporting producer from whom the undertaking is accepted and containing the
information listed in the Annex. Where no such invoice is presented or when it does not correspond
to the product presented to the customs' services, the appropriate rate of anti-dumping duty will be
payable in order to avoid circumvention of the undertaking.

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.

In accordance with Article 8(6) of the basic Regulation, the investigation of dumping, injury and
Community interest will be completed, notwithstanding the acceptance of undertakings during the
course of the investigation.

4. Final provision

(77)

In the interest of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which the interested parties
may make their views known in writing and request a hearing. Furthermore, it should be stated that
the findings made for the purposes of
this Regulation are provisional and may have to be
reconsidered for the purposes of any definitive duty,

L 75/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.3.2000

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of urea and ammonium nitrate
1.
solutions falling within CN code 3102 80 00 and originating in Algeria, Belarus, Lithuania, Russia, and
Ukraine.

The amount of duty shall be equal to the fixed amount in euro per tonne of solution of urea and

2.
ammonium nitrate shown below for the countries concerned:

Country

Company

Amount of duty
(per tonne)

TARIC additional
code

All companies

EUR 9,42

A999

All companies

EUR 18,02

All companies

EUR 5,19

All companies

EUR 15,46

All companies

EUR 21,47

—

—

—

—

Algeria

Belarus

Lithuania

Russia

Ukraine

3.
In cases where goods have been damaged before entry into free circulation and, therefore, the price
actually paid or payable is apportioned for the determination of the customs value pursuant to Article 145
of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1), the amount of anti-dumping duty, calculated on the basis
of the amounts set above, shall be reduced by a percentage which corresponds to the apportioning of the
price actually paid or payable.

4.
Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the provisional duty shall not apply to imports of the product
concerned manufactured and directly exported (i.e. shipped and invoiced) to the first independent customer
in the Community acting as an importer by the company named in Article 2(1) when such imports are in
conformity with Article 2(2).

5.

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

The release for free circulation in the Community of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be

6.
subject to the provision of a security, equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.

Article 2

1.
The undertaking offered by the following company in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding
concerning imports of urea and ammonium nitrate solutions falling within CN code 3102 80 00 and
originating in Algeria, Belarus, Lithuania, Russia, and Ukraine is hereby accepted:

Country

Company

TARIC additional code

Algeria

Fertalge Industries SpA

A107

2. When the request for release for free circulation pursuant to an undertaking is presented, exemption
from the duty shall be conditional on presentation to the relevant Member States' customs services of a
valid undertaking invoice issued by the company mentioned in Article 2(1). The essential elements of the
undertaking invoice are listed in the Annex to this Regulation. Imports accompanied by such an invoice
shall be declared under the Taric additional code provided for in Article 2(1).

(1) OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 40.

24.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 75/17

Exemption from the duty shall further be conditional on the goods declared and presented to customs
corresponding precisely to the description on the undertaking invoice.

Article 3

Without prejudice to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, the interested parties which made
themselves known within the time limit specified in the notice of initiation may make known their views in
writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within 30 days of the date of entry into force of
this Regulation.

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

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

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

Article 4

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

Done at Brussels, 16 March 2000.

For the Commission

Pascal LAMY

Member of the Commission

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

1. The TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice may be customscleared at Community borders (as

ANNEX

specified in the Regulation).

2. The exact description of the goods,

including:

— CN code,

— the nitrogen (‘N’) content of the product (in percentages),

— quantity (to be given in tonnes).

3. The description of the terms of the sale,

including:

— price per tonne,

— the applicable payment terms,

— the applicable delivery terms,

— total discounts and rebates.

4. Name of the unrelated 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 617/2000. I declare that the information provided in this
invoice is complete and correct.’