Council Regulation (EC) No 1086/2000 of 22 May 2000 amending Regulation (EC) No 368/98 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of glyphosate originating in the People's Republic of China
Date: 2000-05-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, herbicide, import, originating product

25.5.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 124/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1086/2000

of 22 May 2000

amending Regulation (EC) No 368/98 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
glyphosate originating in the People's Republic of China

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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 12 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission
after consulting the Advisory Committee,

(4)

Whereas:

(5)

(6)

(1)

(2)

(3)

A. PROCEDURE

1. Measures in force

In February 1998, by Regulation (EC) No 368/98 (2), the
imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on
Council
imports of glyphosate originating in the People's
Republic of China. The rate of the definitive duty applic-
able
free-at-Community-frontier price,
amounted to 24,0 %.

to the net,

2. Request for a review

On 19 June 1998, a request for a review of the above-
mentioned measures was lodged pursuant to Article 12
of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘basic Regulation’). The lodging was
made on behalf of the Community producers whose
collective output of glyphosate constituted a major
proportion of the total Community production of that
product within the meaning of Article 5(4) of the basic
Regulation,
(Denmark),
namely Cheminova Agro
Monsanto Europe (Belgium) and Zeneca Agrochemicals
(United Kingdom).

In the request, it was alleged that the abovementioned
anti-dumping measures had led to no movement, or
in resale prices or subsequent
insufficient movement,
selling prices in the Community. To this effect,
the
complainants submitted sufficient evidence showing that
export prices had actually fallen following the imposi-

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation

(EC) No 905/98 (OJ L 128, 30.4.1998, p. 18).

(2) OJ L 47, 18.2.1998, p. 1.

tion of the said measures which had made no impact on
resale and subsequent selling prices in the Community.

B. REVIEW INVESTIGATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE

12 OF THE BASIC REGULATION

1. Initiation of the review pursuant to Article 12

On 6 August 1998, the Commission announced by a
notice published in the Official Journal of the European
Communities (3) the initiation of a review, pursuant to
Article 12 of the basic Regulation, of the anti-dumping
measures applicable to imports of glyphosate originating
in the People's Republic of China, and commenced an
investigation.

The Commission officially advised the producers/expor-
ters known to be concerned, the representatives of the
exporting country and the complainant Community
Interested
producers, of
parties were given the opportunity to make their views
known in writing and to request a hearing within the
time limit set out in the notice of initiation.

the initiation of

the review.

Panyu

Factory,

Chemical

Shanghai;

The Commission services sent questionnaires to all
exporters known to be concerned, namely: Beixi City
Chemical Plant, Beixi (Liaoning); Shanghai Union Chemi-
cal,
Panyu
(Guangzhou); Samning City Pesticide Factory, Sanming
Jiangsu;
City (Fujian); Zhangjiagang No 2 Pesticide,
Haiyan Pesticide Factory, Haiyan (Zhejiang); Guangzhou
Pesticide Factory, Guangzhou; Hainan Pesticide Factory,
Haikou City (Hainan); Anyang Pesticide Factory, Anyang
(Henan); Taixin Huangqiao Chemical Factory, Sanliu
(Jiangsu); Nantong Chemical Plant,
Bridge Village
Nantong (Jiangsu); Suzhou Chemical & Pesticide, Suzhou
(Jiangsu); Taichung Pesticide Factory, Taichung (Jiangsu);
Wujin Pesticide Factory, Changzhou City (Jiangsu);
Chuan Xi Chemical Plant, Deyang City (Sichuan);
Shifang Chemical Group Pesticide Factory, Shuangsheng
(Sichuan); Longyou Pesticide Factory, Longyou Town
(Zhejiang); Ningbo No 2 Chemical Plant, Ningbo
(Zhejiang); CAC Chemical Co. Ltd, Shanghai; Fujian
Sannong Chemistry Co. Ltd, Xubi-Sanming (Fujian);
Zhangjiagang No 2 Pesticide Factory, Nansha Town
(Jiangsu); Tide International Co. Ltd, Hangzhou; Sino-
chem Ningbo Imp & Exp Corp., Ningbo; Sinochem

(3) OJ C 246, 6.8.1998, p. 3.

L 124/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.5.2000

Jiangsu Imp & Exp Corp., Nanjing; Sinochem Heilong-
jiang Imp & Exp Corp., Harbin; Sinochem International
Chemicals Co., Beijing; Sinochem Liaoning Imp & Exp
Corp., Dalian; Sinochem Tianjin Imp & Exp Corp.,
Tianjin; Hubei Sanonda Co. Ltd, Shashi (Hubei); Shenjen
Jiangshan Commerce & Industrial Group, Shenzhou;
China International Trust
(‘CITIC’),
Beijing; Quickett, Hong Kong; High Kite Ltd, Hong
Kong, and Rotam, Hong Kong.

Investment Corp.

No replies to the questionnaire were received from the
abovementioned exporters and producers except
for
Fujian Sannong Chemistry Co. Ltd and Jiangsu Zhejiang
Jiangnan Chemical Factory, which reported no exports
to the Community during the new investigation period
(as defined in recital 10), Hubei Sanonda Co. Ltd, which
reported having stopped producing glyphosate since the
year 1997, and Zhenjiang Xinan Chemical
Industrial
Group Co. Ltd which claimed that it was one of the
largest Chinese manufacturers and exporters of glypho-
sate to the Community during the investigation period.

On 23 September 1999, the sole cooperating exporter,
Industrial Group Co. Ltd
Zhenjiang Xinan Chemical
treatment and submitted some
requested individual
information to support
its claim. The Commission
deemed such information insufficient and sent a specific
individual
to the Chinese
company concerned. No reply was made to this ques-
tionnaire.

treatment questionnaire

Questionnaires were also sent to independent importers
known to have imported glyphosate from the People's
Republic of China so as to ascertain the resale prices of
the product concerned before and after the imposition
of the anti-dumping duties. Replies to the questionnaires
were received from the following unrelated importers:

(7)

(8)

(9)

— Feinchemie Schwebda GmbH, Germany,

— Herbex Produtos Químicos SA, Portugal,

(15)

— Industrias Afrasa SA, Spain, and

— Calliope SA, France.

Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the
abovementioned unrelated importers.

(10)

The investigation period of this review runs from 1
January 1998 to 30 June 1998. This investigation period
was used to determine the current level of export prices
and resale and subsequent selling prices charged after
the imposition of anti-dumping measures to see whether
the measures had achieved the intended effects in terms
of increased import prices for the product under consid-
eration.

(11)

In establishing whether resale and subsequent selling
prices had moved sufficiently, the price levels charged in
the investigation period were compared to those charged
investigation period which had
during the original

covered the period from 1 September 1994 to 31
August 1995.

(12) Owing to the volume of data gathered and examined, in
particular in view of the complexity of the analysis of
the movement of
the resale and subsequent selling
prices, and the fact that normal values were re-exam-
ined, the investigation exceeded the normal period of six
months provided for in Article 12(4) of the basic Regu-
lation.

2. Product concerned

(13)

The product concerned by the request, and for which
the review was initiated, is the same as in the original
investigation, i.e. glyphosate currently classifiable within
CN codes
ex 2931 00 95 (2931 00 80 until 31
December 1997) and ex 3808 30 27, the latter when
put up in forms or packing for retail use or as prepara-
tions or articles.

(14) Glyphosate is a herbicide which can be produced in
different grades or forms of concentration: formulated
(with 36 % glyphosate content), salt (with 62 %), cake
(with 84 %) and acid (with 95 %). In order to reduce the
costs of transportation, distributors normally purchase
glyphosate in a concentrated form (usually acid, but also
salt) which they subsequently dilute to obtain the formu-
lated glyphosate, the only form that can be used as an
end product.

3. Movement of export prices from China and of

resale prices in the community

(a) Introduction

the purpose of

The purpose of this investigation is to establish whether
measures have had the intended remedial effects in
removing injury and whether any such failure to remove
injury is as a result of increased dumping through a fall
in export prices. For
the present
proceeding, such a fall in export prices may be reflected
in the direct export prices charged by exporters to the
Community or it may be reflected in a lack of move-
ment in resale prices or subsequent selling prices in the
Community due to a compensatory arrangement. There-
fore, the investigation examined price movements of
export prices from China as well as prices at resale and
other levels in the Community.

(b) Movement in export prices from China

(16)

The Commission sought
information on the export
Information was
prices of glyphosate from China.
provided by the one cooperating Chinese exporter and
four cooperating unrelated importers in the Community.
In fact, export prices were found to have fallen by
approximately 45 % as compared to those that were
established during the original

investigation.

25.5.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 124/3

(c) Movement in resale prices in the Community

(17)

The Commission sought information on resale prices
and subsequent selling prices of glyphosate in the
Community before and after the imposition of anti-
dumping measures. The four cooperating unrelated
importers in the Community, who imported the product
concerned during the investigation period, provided
information on import and resale prices of Chinese
glyphosate.

(18) A comparison of resale prices charged during the ori-
ginal investigation period and those charged during the
present investigation period showed that resale prices
had actually fallen since measures were imposed. On
average this fall amounted to approximately 12 % as
compared to the level previously established in the ori-
ginal
investigation. The unrelated importers did not
provide evidence that this fall was due to the increased
efficiency of their resale operations in the Community.

4. Claims made by interested parties

(a) General

(19)

In Article 12 investigations, importers and exporters are
provided with an opportunity to provide evidence which
in prices in the
could justify a lack of movement
Community following the imposition of measures. The
reasons which can justify such a lack of movement
include a reduction in the costs and profit of
the
importer or a fall
in normal value. Several parties
provided information in this respect.

(b) Producers/exporters in the country of origin

fallen by a far greater amount (45 %) the movement in
normal values could not justify the lack of movement in
resale prices in the Community.

(c) Unrelated importers in the Community

(23)

The Commission also examined whether the lack of
movement of resale prices was due to a decrease in the
costs and profits of the unrelated importers.
In this
respect, the position of the four cooperating importers
was examined and it was found that the levels of their
costs and profits had remained broadly the same as
those found in the original case. Therefore, these claims
were rejected.

5. Reassessment of the export prices

(24) Normally, in Article 12 investigations where a lack of
movement of resale prices has been established, export
prices would be reassessed on the basis of prices charged
to independent buyers
in the Community by the
importer from which all costs and a normal profit of the
said importer would be deducted to arrive at a
constructed export price. This would be done in accord-
ance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.

(25)

In this case, however, the reassessment of export prices
was made by reference to the fall in the direct export
prices charged between the exporters and importers in
accordance with the last sentence of Article 12(2) of the
in export prices was
basic Regulation. This direct fall
considered to be the reason for the lack of movement in
resale prices and subsequent
in the
Community following the imposition of measures and
therefore the absorption of measures is reflected in the
fall

in export prices.

selling prices

(20) One Chinese producer/exporter of glyphosate argued
that the fall
in resale prices since the imposition of
anti-dumping measures was mainly caused by a world-
wide decline in the cost of production of glyphosate,
which in its turn was reflected in significant changes of
normal values which ought to be taken into account.

(26) As export prices were found to have fallen by 45 % since
the existing measures were imposed,
the reassessed
export prices were established by taking the export
prices found in the original investigation and deducting
the amount of the anti-dumping duty in force.

(21)

Since the normal value established during the original
investigation was established on the basis of an analogue
country, i.e. Brazil, the Commission requested informa-
tion in respect of normal values from the two known
Brazilian producers which cooperated during the ori-
i.e. Monsanto Brasil and Nortox,
ginal
which continue to be the sole producers of glyphosate
in the analogue country. Investigations were carried out
at the premises of the Brazilian producers.

investigation,

(22)

The Commission verified normal values and found that
they had indeed fallen. This fall, which was calculated in
relation to the normal values of the original case and
those prevailing in the investigation period of this case,
showed a fall of 17 %. However, as export prices had

6. Recalculation of

the dumping margin taking

account of reassessed export prices

(27) As required under Article 12 of the basic Regulation, the
Commission recalculated the dumping margin for the
Chinese producers/exporters concerned. This was done
by comparing the reassessed export prices with the
invest-
normal values established during the original
igation. This gives a dumping margin which when
expressed as a percentage of the cif value equates to
62 %. Pursuant to Article 12(3) of the basic Regulation,
the measures in force shall therefore be amended in
accordance with the new findings.

L 124/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.5.2000

7. New level of duties

‘Article 1

(28)

The measures currently in force are based on the level of
injury found in the original investigation. Therefore, the
reassessed export prices were compared with the injury
threshold established in the original investigation. Since
the injury margin calculated on this basis is lower than
the dumping margin, the new level of the duty should
be based in the former. Accordingly, the proposed level
of duty expressed as a percentage of the cif value is
48 %,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

of

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on
1.
CN codes
imports
ex 2931 00 95
and
ex 3808 30 27 (TARIC code 3808 30 27 10) originating in
the People's Republic of China.

falling within
code

glyphosate
(TARIC

2931 00 95 80)

2.
The rate of duty applicable to the net,
Community-frontier price before duty shall be 48 %.

free-at-

3.
Unless otherwise specified,
concerning customs duties shall apply.’

the provisions in force

Article 2

Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 368/98 shall be replaced by the
following:

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

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

Done at Brussels, 22 May 2000.

For the Council

The President

J. GAMA