Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duties imposed on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Algeria, Belarus, Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine, and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports originating in the Slovak Republic
Date: 2000-08-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: anti-dumping duty, dumping, import, organic fertiliser, third country

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 22.08.2000
COM(2000) 534 final

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the
provisional duties imposed on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium
nitrate originating in Algeria, Belarus, Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine, and
terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports originating in the
Slovak Republic

(presented by the Commission)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

On 26 June 1999, the Commission opened an anti-dumping investigation 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 Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 617/20001 imposed provisional anti-
dumping duties on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate (UAN),
originating in Algeria, Belarus, Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine.

In the same Regulation, it was provisionally concluded that no anti-dumping duty
should be imposed on imports of the product concerned originating in the Slovak
Republic covered by the same investigation, since these imports were not found to
have caused material injury to the Community industry.

The attached proposal for a Council Regulation is based on the definitive findings on
dumping, injury, causation and Community interest which broadly confirmed the
provisional findings

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation
which should be published in the Official Journal no later than 23 September 2000.

1 OJ L 75, 24.3.2000, p.3.

2

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the
provisional duties imposed on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium
nitrate originating in Algeria, Belarus, Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine, and
terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports originating in the
Slovak Republic

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
Community2, and in particular Article 9 thereof,

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

Whereas :

A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES

(1)

(2)

The Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 617/20003
(the "provisional
Regulation") imposed provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of solutions
of urea and ammonium nitrate falling within CN code 3102 80 00 and
originating in Algeria, Belarus, Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine and accepted,
on a provisional basis, an undertaking offered by an exporting producer in
Algeria.

In the same Regulation, it was provisionally concluded that no anti-dumping
duty should be imposed on imports of the product concerned originating in the
Slovak Republic, also subject to the same investigation, since these imports
were not found to have caused material injury to the Community industry.

2 OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 905/98 of 27 April 1998, OJ L 128,

30.4.1998, p.18.

3 OJ L 75, 24.3.2000, p.3.

3

B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE

(3)

(4)

(5)

Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the
basis of which it was decided to impose provisional measures on imports of
solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Algeria, Belarus,
Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine ("disclosure"), several
interested parties
submitted comments in writing. The parties who so requested were also
granted an opportunity to be heard orally.

The Commission continued to seek and verify all
necessary for its definitive findings.

information it deemed

All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis
of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-
dumping duties and the definitive collection of amounts secured by way of
provisional duties. They were also granted a period within which they could
make representations subsequent to this disclosure.

(6)

The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were considered, and,
where appropriate, the provisional findings have been modified accordingly.

(7)

(8)

(9)

C. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

As outlined in recital 8 of the provisional Regulation, the product concerned is
solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate, a liquid nitrogen fertiliser used in
agriculture. 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 investigation.

In view of the above and since no new arguments were put forward by any of
the parties concerned with respect to the Commission's provisional findings on
the product concerned and the considerations made on the like product, the
facts and findings as set out in recitals 8 and 9 of the provisional Regulation
are confirmed.

D. DUMPING

1. Algeria

a) Normal value

The cooperating exporting producer claimed that its cost of production had
been miscalculated because the Commission had not taken into account the
fact
that no import duty was paid on imported raw materials used in
the
manufacturing the product concerned for export. It also claimed that
Commission had incorrectly determined the transport costs from the factory to
the port.

(10) Both claims were examined. As far as the import duty is concerned, the claim
was found to be correct. The constructed normal value was therefore
recalculated taking into account this element. With regard to transport costs,

4

the claim was rejected, since no information to support it had been provided.
The remaining findings on normal value, as set out in recitals 11 and 12 of the
provisional Regulation, are confirmed.

b) Export price, comparison

(11)

In the absence of any comments under these headings,
the provisional
findings, as set out in recitals 13 and 14 of the provisional Regulation, are
confirmed.

c) Dumping margin

(12)

In the absence of any comments concerning the methodology used for the
calculation of the dumping margin, the methodology described in recital 15 of
the provisional Regulation is confirmed. On this basis, the definitive dumping
margin for the cooperating exporting producer, expressed as a percentage of
the cif Community frontier price, is now 9,7%.

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

2. Lithuania

a) Normal value

(13)

(14)

The Lithuanian producer objected to the Commission’s provisional findings,
claiming that its normal value, which had been constructed in the absence of
domestic sales of the product concerned, was too high and had resulted in an
excessive dumping margin (7.6%). In particular, it claimed that its selling,
general and administrative (SG&A) expenses had been overstated and that
these same expenses had been taken from a different set of accounts (the
audited accounts for 1998) to that used for calculating the manufacturing cost
(internal management accounts covering the investigation period, June 1998-
May 1999), thereby distorting the results.

Since it was found that there were no domestic sales of the product concerned,
the amounts for SG&A expenses had to be determined in accordance with
Article 2(6) of the Basic Regulation. As there were no other Lithuanian
producers whose SG&A amounts could be used,
the sole Lithuanian
producer’s SG&A amounts were determined for ‘the same general category of
products for the exporter or producer in question in the domestic market of the
company of origin’ . In this regard, it should be mentioned that the company
did not originally provide any information at all on its global SG&A expenses
this information was provided
in its reply to the questionnaire. In fact,
following a deficiency letter by the Commission but when sent was not only
incorrect, but incomplete in that financial expenses had been omitted. It had
therefore been considered appropriate to make use of a reliable source of
information (the 1998 audited accounts) for the purposes of the provisional
determination.

5

(15)

Following the publication of the provisional Regulation, the SG&A expenses
were recalculated on the basis of the same internal management accounts
which had been used in the provisional
to determine the
manufacturing cost of the product concerned. The Commission requested
further clarification of the company’s figures and reviewed all the information
it had obtained since the beginning of the investigation. It reached the
conclusion that the figures provided a basis which was indeed reliable enough
to be used. As a result of the recalculation of SG&A expenses, the normal
value was adjusted downwards.

findings

(16)

Following disclosure of the definitive findings, the Lithuanian producer raised
further objections.

In general terms, the company claimed that the revised methodology had led to
a number of inconsistencies due to the fact that the accounts used for the
determination of SG&A expenses were incomplete or inaccurate. Regarding
this general comment, it should be noted that these were the same accounts
used for the determination of the cost of manufacturing, and had not been
contested by the company at the provisional stage – indeed, the company had
argued strongly that these accounts should also be used for determining the
SG&A expenses.

The company then made a number of specific claims. First, it claimed that the
internal management accounts covering the investigation period understated
both its total and its domestic turnover. The claim was rejected because the
the
company had had sufficient opportunity since the beginning of
investigation to provide a complete and accurate picture of its situation. It had
made no mention of the possible inaccuracy of the figures it had provided until
it had decided to contest the definitive findings and even then did not provide
an explanation for the turnover discrepancies.

Second, the company claimed that its export SG&A costs were understated in
the management accounts because the latter did not include SG&A costs for
exports to markets other than the Community; consequently, the Commission
should have deducted a larger amount from its total SG&A costs in order to
arrive at the correct amount for domestic SG&A. This claim was rejected
because the costs in question represented an extremely high proportion of the
income from export sales to these other markets, compared with exports to the
Community, and because no mention of this inconsistency had been made
earlier in the proceeding and no explanation for the failure to include these
expenses being missing in the management accounts had been provided.

Third, the company claimed that some of its financial expenses were not
attributable to the production of UAN since a large part of its business
consisted of holding activities. Here it should be pointed out that fertiliser
production accounts for the vast bulk of the company’s business and,
moreover, that the company failed to include any data on financial expenses in
its reply to the questionnaire, arguing that no such expenses were attributable
to UAN. It is considered that all expenses which are not directly attributable to
a particular product should nonetheless be attributed and that, in the absence of

6

any more reasonable approach, turnover is an appropriate basis for allocation
of these expenses. This claim was therefore rejected, except in respect of
‘financial brokerage expenses’, which, it was found, did not need to be taken
into account since it would have had no impact on the definitive findings.

Fourth, it was claimed that the general and administrative expenses (G&A)
should only have been included in so far as they related to production
activities. The company produced a table containing figures prepared on this
basis by its external auditors. This claim was rejected because the auditors, in
a letter to which the table was attached, had expressly declined to give an
opinion on the figures. In addition, the argument in the preceding paragraph
concerning the across-the-board allocation of costs is equally relevant here. A
similar claim contesting the allocation of G&A expenses incurred in
connection with trading activities, and for which no supporting evidence was
provided, was also rejected.

(17)

The complainant,
the European Fertilisers Manufacturers’ Association
(EFMA), also made comments on the method of constructing normal value for
the Lithuanian producer and claimed that the Commission should have made
adjustments in respect of :

–

–

–

depreciation rates, on the grounds that those applied by the producer
were too low and were not in line with those applied in Western
Europe, and by the Community industry in particular;

fixed asset valuations, on the grounds that the producer’s assets were
not valued in accordance with international accounting standards;

the gas price,
judged to be too low, charged by the Russian gas
supplier, resulting in an abnormally low cost of production. The
complainant suggested that the Commission recalculate the producer’s
gas costs on the basis of figures obtained from a Community gas
supplier showing what was considered to be the lowest reasonable
price the Lithuanian producer could be expected to have paid for gas in
the IP.

All three claims were examined. As far as concerns depreciation, most, but
by no means all, of the rates used by the Lithuanian producer were longer
than those used by Community producers, but were nonetheless mostly
within the range of variation found in the Community; however,
the
depreciation charge, as a percentage of the cost of production, was not
significantly different from that typically found in the Community industry.
Moreover, the rates were in line with Lithuanian accounting practices. The
fixed asset valuations were also found to be stated in accordance with
national accounting standards. These claims were therefore rejected.

With regard to the claim concerning gas prices, this question had already
been thoroughly examined the question at
the provisional stage of the
proceeding and it had been concluded that there was no evidence to suggest
that the prices charged were not reliable, or did not reflect the true cost of
supply. Moreover, the price paid for gas by the Lithuanian producer was

7

found not to be lower than the price advanced by the complainant. This
claim, too, was therefore rejected.

b) Export price, comparison

(18)

In the absence of any comments under these headings,
the provisional
findings, as set out in recitals 17 and 18 of the provisional Regulation, are
confirmed.

c) Dumping margin

(19)

In the absence of any comments concerning the methodology used for the
calculation of the dumping margin, the methodology described in recital 19 of
the provisional Regulation is confirmed. On this basis, the definitive dumping
the
margin for the cooperating exporting producer,
the cif
changes mentioned above, and expressed as a percentage of
Community frontier price, is 5,8%.

taking into account

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

3. Belarus, Russia, Ukraine

a) Analogue country

(20)

In the absence of any comments concerning the choice of Lithuania as market
economy third country, the provisional conclusion as set out in recital 22 of
the provisional Regulation is confirmed.

b) Russia

i) Individual treatment

(21) One cooperating exporting producer requested that its claim for individual
treatment be reconsidered on the grounds that, with respect to its export sales,
it was not subject to any interference by the state. In support of this claim, it
advanced the following arguments:

– the conditions and terms of its export sales were determined freely;

– the

company’s

supervisory board was

elected annually by the
shareholders,
the majority of whom were private companies or
individuals. All but one of the board’s members were independent from
the state;

– exchange rate conversions were carried out at the market rate.

(22)

The Commission reviewed the claim for individual treatment focusing its
analysis, at this definitive stage, mainly on those areas having a direct impact
on the company’s export activities. On this basis,
the
arguments put forward by the company were valid, and, since it was also

is considered that

8

considered that the level of state interference was not such as to permit
circumvention of measures if exporters are given different rates of duty, the
company’s claim have been accepted.

(23)

The complainant objected strongly to the granting of individual treatment to
this producer at the definitive stage, given that the Commission had rejected
the request at the provisional stage on the grounds that it was ‘not sufficiently
free of state influence’. This fact alone should have been enough to stop the
Commission reversing its decision.
the Russian state’s
discounting of gas prices gave its fertiliser producers an unfair competitive
advantage and that their export sales could therefore not be considered to be
truly market-based transactions. It also expressed concern about the increased
potential for circumvention of the duties, because the individual margin was
slightly lower than the countrywide margin.

It argued that

It should be pointed out that decisions taken at the provisional stage are always
reviewed in the light of comments received and may be modified before
definitive findings are reached. Whilst it remained true that the State had an
influence in the setting of gas prices, the determination of normal value on the
basis of constructed value in the analogue country rendered this argument
irrelevant. Moreover, the company had been found to be free to decide what
quantities to export and at what prices. In any event, accepting this argument
would be tantamount to denying individual treatment to all companies which
did not qualify for market economy status (i.e. because it did not meet the
criteria laid down at Article 2(7)(c) of the Basic Regulation) . As to the added
risk of circumvention, reference is made to recital 23 dealing with the
independence of the Russian company concerned from the state.

ii) Comparison

(24)

The complainant also questioned the basis on which the normal value had been
compared to the export price i.e. on an fob (ex-exporting country frontier)
basis. It argued that the use of this method had distorted the findings because it
did not adequately take into account the differences in internal transport costs
in market and non-market economy (NME) countries, and that
the
comparison had been made on an ex-works basis, the dumping margin would
have been significantly greater.

if

The comparison of normal value with the export price should be made at the
genuinely similar commercial stage, whether this is fob or ex-works. In the
present case, the product concerned is a bulk product, for which the transport
costs account for a very high proportion of the selling price. After careful
examination of the arguments, it is considers that the fob comparison does
indeed give an undue advantage to companies whose geographical location, if
they were located in a market economy country, would prohibit them from
exporting bulk products, and has therefore, for the purposes of the definitive
determination, changed the basis of the comparison from fob to ex-works. The
appropriate adjustments were therefore made to the export price in respect of
the costs for transport from ex-works to port and for port services.

9

iii) Dumping margin

(25)

The individual dumping margin for the cooperating exporting producer
granted individual treatment, and the countrywide dumping margin for all
other producers were recalculated using the revised normal value of the
Lithuanian producer (see recitals 13 to 15).

On this basis, the dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the cif
Community frontier price, are:

JSC Nevinnomyssky Azot:

28,5%

All other companies: 41,0%.

c) Belarus

i) Comparison

(26)

In view of the change in the basis of comparison from fob to ex-works level
(see recital (24)), the appropriate adjustments were made to the export price in
respect of the costs for transport from ex-works to port and for port services.

ii) Dumping margin

(27)

(28)

The dumping margin for Belarus was recalculated using the revised normal
value of the Lithuanian producer (see recitals 13 to 15)

The cooperating exporting producer claimed that
it had not been given
adequate disclosure of the provisional findings and therefore had been
prevented from making any substantive or meaningful comment on the
the quantities
In addition,
dumping margin calculation.
exported had been miscalculated because returns had not been taken into
account and because some of the UAN exported had a nitrogen content of 30%
instead of the more usual 32%. Finally, it claimed that the CIF value had been
wrongly calculated.

it claimed that

(29) As far as concerns the amount of information contained in the disclosure
document on the provisional findings, it is considered that the information
provided was
the maximum possible without breaching the duty of
confidentiality to the sole Lithuanian producer in respect of its own normal
value.

(30) With regard to the other claims, the available information was reviewed and
the export quantities adjusted. As regards the calculation of the CIF value, the
methodology adopted in the provisional Regulation is confirmed.

(31)

In the absence of any other comments concerning the determination of the
dumping margin, the methodology set out in recital 31 of the provisional duty
Regulation is confirmed. On this basis, the countrywide dumping margin,
expressed as a percentage of the cif Community frontier price, is 55,0%.

10

d) Ukraine

i) Comparison

(32)

In view of the change in the basis of comparison from fob to ex-works level
(see recital (24)), the appropriate adjustments were made to the export price in
respect of the costs for transport from ex-works to port and for port services.

ii) Dumping margin

(33)

The Commission recalculated the Ukrainian dumping margin using the revised
normal value of the Lithuanian producer (see recitals 13 to 15).

On this basis, the countrywide dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of
the CIF Community frontier price, is 50,4%.

E. DEFINITION OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

(34)

In the absence of any comments or new information the provisional findings as
described in recitals 35 to 36 of the provisional Regulation on the definition of
the Community industry are confirmed.

(35)

(36)

F. INJURY

1. Cumulation

The complainant questioned the decumulation of the Slovak Republic, without
however submitting any new information. In this respect it is underlined, in
particular, that both the volumes and market shares of the imports originating
in the Slovak Republic were the lowest of all countries concerned and that
the ones of the Community industry. The
their prices did not undercut
provisional findings regarding the appropriateness of the decumulation of
imports originating in the Slovak Republic are therefore confirmed.

The Algerian exporting producer submitted that imports originating in Algeria
should be assessed separately, on the grounds of a low dumping margin, a
small average market share and a small undercutting margin. In this respect, it
should be outlined that the dumping margin for the imports originating in
Algeria is above the de minimis level and the volume of these imports during
the investigation period is not negligible. Furthermore, as to the conditions of
competition, there was an upward trend in the volume of imports, the price
behaviour of the Algerian exporting producer was comparable to that of the
other exporting producers in the other countries concerned and price
undercutting was found for these imports which used the same channels of
trade. For these reasons, and in accordance with Art. 3 (4) of the Basic
the
Regulation,
provisional Regulation are confirmed.

findings as described in recital 41 of

the provisional

2. Price undercutting

(37)

The exporting producer in Belarus submitted that the customs duty applicable
for imports originating in Belarus was 6.8 % in 1998 and 6.5 % in 1999 while

11

the Commission, in the calculation of the CIF Community frontier value, ex-
quay, duty paid, had used 6.5 % for all imports. The cif value was recalculated
accordingly, which did not, however, change the range for the undercutting
margin for imports originating in Belarus mentioned in recital 46 of the
provisional Regulation.

(38)

Since the customs duty applicable for imports originating in Russia also
changed in 1999, the undercutting margin for imports originating in Russia
was also accordingly recalculated. The revised weighted average price
undercutting expressed as a percentage of the Community industry’s prices
amounts to 6.5%. Otherwise, the methodology set out in recital 46 of the
provisional duty Regulation is confirmed.

3. Situation of the Community industry

(39) Certain parties submitted that for the injury analysis the situation in 1995
should be compared to the one in the investigation period, and not the one in
1997 to the one in the investigation period. In this respect it should be clarified
that material injury in the investigation period is one of the conditions to be
fulfilled before anti-dumping measures can be taken. It should be noted that
the Basic Regulation does not require injury to occur throughout the whole
period covering the examination of injury. Indeed this would amount to a
requirement that the situation of the Community industry must have been
continuously deteriorating over a period of four to five years before measures
could be imposed. In order to establish whether such injury exists, inter alia,
the preceding years and the developments and trends found between them and
the
the investigation period serve as reference.
investigation covered the period between 1995 and the investigation period
and not just 1995 and the investigation period as suggested by these parties.
this period, a marked
Taking into account developments
deterioration of the situation of the Community industry has been found in
particular between 1997 and the investigation period. In view of the above, the
provisional findings as regards the material injury suffered by the Community
industry are therefore confirmed.

In the current case,

throughout

G. CAUSATION

(40) Certain exporting producers submitted that the Commission underestimated
the impact of the Chinese decision to ban imports of urea as from April 1997
on the worldwide oversupply. In this respect
it should be noted that the
existence or not of a situation of oversupply, whatever its importance, does not
provide a justification for dumped imports causing injury to the community
industry. Therefore, in the absence of any new information, the findings as
described in recitals 62 and 63 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

H. COMMUNITY INTEREST

(41)

In the absence of any new information the provisional findings as described in
recitals 64 to 69 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

12

(42)

(43)

(44)

(45)

(46)

(47)

I. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

1. Termination of the proceeding in respect of the Slovak Republic

in recital 60 of the provisional
In the light of the conclusions set out
Regulation, i.e. that no price undercutting has been found, that the import
volume was relatively low and the market share small and stable,
the
proceeding concerning imports originating in the Slovak Republic is hereby
terminated without the imposition of measures.

2. Injury elimination level

For the purposes of establishing the level of definitive measures to be
imposed, it is confirmed that the prices of the dumped imports should be
increased to a level where injurious dumping is eliminated.

The complainant submitted that a profit margin of 5% was not realistic and
that a higher level of profit should be used in determining a non-injurious price
level. However, as a profit margin of 5% has been used in previous anti-
dumping cases concerning solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate and in the
absence of elements pointing to a change in circumstances requiring a new
evaluation, it is concluded that a margin of 5% remains an appropriate level of
profit.

Furthermore, the methodology used for establishing the injury margin as
described in recital 70 of the provisional Regulation was confirmed.

The injury margin for Belarus was revised to take into account the fact that the
customs duty applicable for imports originating in Belarus was 6.8 % in 1998
and 6.5 % in 1999 while, as mentioned above,
in the
calculation of the cif Community frontier value, ex-quay, duty paid, used 6.5%
for all imports. The cif value was recalculated accordingly. The new injury
margin for imports originating in Belarus is 27.5 %.

the Commission,

Since the customs duty applicable for imports originating in Russia also
changed in 1999, the injury margins for imports originating in Russia were
also accordingly recalculated. Furthermore, since individual treatment was
granted to one Russian exporting producer, an individual injury margin was
calculated accordingly. The new injury margins for imports originating in
Russia however remain below the dumping margins found.

3. Undertakings

(48)

The undertaking accepted at the provisional stage from the Algerian exporting
producer was revised in order to adjust the minimum import price on the basis
of the definitive findings for the producer (see recitals (9) to (12) above).

Undertakings offered by the two cooperating Russian companies were
rejected. One was rejected because the company concerned was not an
exporting producer from whom such undertaking could be accepted, but an
intermediate trader, purchasing the product concerned from a non-cooperating

13

producer and selling it to a related company for export. The other undertaking
offer was rejected because the company is an integrated producer of fertilisers,
and therefore has a wide range of marketing options open to it when faced
with measures on one of its products. It should be stressed that in these
the undertakings would have proved
circumstances,
impracticable. .

the monitoring of

The undertaking offered by the cooperating Belarus exporting producer was
rejected on similar grounds.

4. Form and level of the definitive measures

(49)

In the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article
7(2) of the Basic Regulation, definitive anti-dumping duties should be
imposed at the level of the injury margins found, which are lower than the
in recitals 15 and 19 of the
dumping margins. For the reasons set out
provisional Regulation, it is confirmed that the residual duties for Algeria and
Lithuania shall be set at the level established respectively for the sole producer
in each country.

(50)

In order to ensure the efficiency of the measures and to discourage the price
manipulation which has been observed in some previous proceedings
involving fertilisers, it is confirmed that the duties should be imposed in the
form of a specific amount per tonne. These duties amount to:

Country

Dumping
margin

Basis for
AD duty

Amount of duty
(per tonne)

ALGERIA
-FERTALGE INDUSTRIES
BELARUS
LITHUANIA
- JSC ACHEMA
RUSSIA
- JSC NEVINNOMYSSKY
AZOT
- All OTHER COMPANIES
UKRAINE

9.7
55.0

5.8

28.5

41.0
50.4

9.7
27.5

5.8

27.4

32.0
45.7

€
€

€

€

€
€

6.88
17.86

3.98

17.80

20.11
26.17

(51)

The individual company anti-dumping duty rate specified in this Regulation
was established on the basis of the findings of the present
investigation.
Therefore, it reflects the situation found during that investigation with respect
to this company. This duty rate (as opposed to the country-wide duty
applicable to 'all other companies') is thus exclusively applicable to imports of
products originating in the country concerned and produced by the company
and thus by the specific legal entity mentioned. Imported products produced
by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this
including entities related to those
Regulation with its name and address,

14

specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from this rate and shall be subject to the
duty rate applicable to 'all other companies'.

(52) Any claim requesting the application of this individual company anti-dumping
duty rate (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the
setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the
Commission4
in particular any
relevant
modification in the company's activities linked to production, domestic and
export sales associated with e.g. that name change or that change in the
production and sales entities. The Commission,
if appropriate, will, after
consultation of the Advisory Committee, amend the Regulation accordingly by
updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.

forthwith with all

information,

J. COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTIES

(53)

In view of the extent of the dumping margins found and in the light of the
level of the injury caused to the Community industry,
is considered
necessary that the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping
imposed by Regulation (EC) No 617/2000, should be definitively
duty,
collected at the rate of the duty definitively imposed.

it

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

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

The amount of duty in

2.
concerned:

€

per tonne shall be as shown below for the countries

4 European Commission

Directorate-General Trade
Directorate C
DM 24 - 8/38
Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200
B-1049 Brussels / Belgium

15

Country

Company

ALGERIA

All companies

BELARUS

All companies

LITHUANIA

All companies

RUSSIA

JSC Nevinnomyssky Azot
357030
Stavropol region
Nevinnomyssk, Nizyaev st. 1

Russian

Federation,

All other companies

UKRAINE

All companies

€

€

€

€

€

€

Amount of
duty (per
tonne)

6.88

17.86

3.98

TARIC
additional
code

A999

----

----

17.80

A176

20.11

A999

26.17

----

In cases where goods have been damaged before entry into free circulation
3.
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
2454/935
, 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.

Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the definitive duty shall not apply to imports

4.
released for free circulation in accordance with the provisions of Article 2.

Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties

5.
shall apply.

The proceeding concerning imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate

6.
originating in the Slovak Republic shall be terminated.

1.

Imports pursuant to the undertaking offered by :

Article 2

Company

Fertalge Industries spa
12, Chemin AEK Gadouche
Hydra

Country

Algeria

Alger

TARIC additional code

A107

and accepted by the Commission, when released for free circulation, shall be
exempted from the anti-dumping duty set in Article 1(2) when they are manufactured

5 OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p.40.

16

and directly exported and invoiced to an importing company in the Community by the
company mentioned above and declared under the appropriate TARIC additional
code.

The exemption shall be conditional upon presentation to the relevant Member
2.
State’s customs services of a valid undertaking invoice issued by the exporting
company containing the essential elements listed in the Annex.

Article 3

The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant
to
Regulation (EC) No 617/2000 on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate
originating in Algeria, Belarus, Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine shall be collected at the
rate of the duty definitively imposed. Amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate
of anti-dumping duties shall be released.

Article 4

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

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

Done at Brussels,

For the Council
The President

17