Council Regulation (EC) No 1995/2000 of 18 September 2000 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: 2000-09-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, dumping, import, organic fertiliser, third country

22.9.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 238/15

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1995/2000

of 18 September 2000

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,

(5)

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 9 thereof,

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

the essential

facts and
All parties were informed of
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.

Whereas:

C. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

(1)

(2)

(3)

A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES

The Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 617/2000 (2)
(the ‘provisional Regulation’) imposed a provisional anti-
dumping duty on imports of solutions of urea and
ammonium nitrate (UAN)
falling within CN code
3102 80 00 and originating in Algeria, Belarus, Lithu-
ania, 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.

B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE

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
UAN originating in Algeria, Belarus, Lithuania, Russia
interested parties
and Ukraine (‘disclosure’),
submitted comments in writing. The parties who so
requested were also granted an opportunity to be heard
orally.

several

(4)

The Commission continued to seek and verify all infor-
mation it deemed necessary for its definitive findings.

(7)

(8)

As outlined in recital 8 of the provisional Regulation,
the product concerned is solutions of UAN, a liquid
nitrogen fertiliser used in agriculture. Whatever their
nitrogen content, all solutions of UAN are considered to
have the same basic physical and chemical characteris-
tics 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

(9)

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
manufacturing the product concerned for export. It also
claimed that the Commission had incorrectly determined
the transport costs from the factory to the port.

(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 75, 24.3.2000, p. 3.

(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

L 238/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22.9.2000

taking into account this element. With regard to trans-
port costs, 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.

It had therefore been considered
had been omitted.
appropriate to make use of a reliable source of informa-
tion (the 1998 audited accounts) for the purposes of the
provisional determination.

(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)

(13)

(14)

In the absence of any comments concerning the meth-
odology used for the calculation of the dumping margin,
the methodology described in recital 15 of the provi-
sional Regulation is confirmed. On this basis, the defin-
itive dumping margin for the cooperating exporting
producer,
cif
Community frontier price,

a percentage of
is now 9,7 %.

expressed as

the

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

it claimed that

findings, claiming that

The Lithuanian producer objected to the Commission's
its normal value,
provisional
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
selling, general and
particular,
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 invest-
igation period,
thereby
distorting the results.

June 1998 to May 1999),

its

the

amounts

concerned,

Since it was found that there were no domestic sales of
the product
for SG & A
expenses had to be determined in accordance with
Article 2(6) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (hereafter
referred to as 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 in its reply to the questionnaire. In
fact, this information was provided following a defi-
ciency letter by the Commission but when sent was not
only incorrect, but incomplete in that financial expenses

(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 findings to determine the manu-
facturing cost of the product concerned. The Commis-
sion 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.

(16)

Following disclosure of
Lithuanian producer raised further objections.

the definitive findings,

the

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.
Firstly, 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 company had had sufficient opportunity
since the beginning of the 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.

Secondly, 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; conse-
quently, 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 incon-
sistency 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.

22.9.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 238/17

Thirdly, 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 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 they
would have had no impact on the definitive findings.

Fourthly, it was claimed that the general and adminis-
trative expenses (G & A) should only have been included
insofar 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
reasonable price the Lithuanian producer
lowest
could be expected to have paid for gas in the invest-
igation period.

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
the depreciation charge, as a
Community; however,

from that

percentage of the cost of production, was not signifi-
cantly different
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 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 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 meth-
odology used for the calculation of the dumping margin,
the methodology described in recital 19 of the provi-
sional Regulation is confirmed. On this basis, the defin-
itive dumping margin for the cooperating exporting
producer, taking into account the changes mentioned
above, and expressed as a percentage of
the cif
Community frontier price,

is 5,8 %.

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 )

I n d i v i d u a l

t r e a t m e n t

(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,

L 238/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22.9.2000

— 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,

(22)

(23)

— exchange rate conversions were carried out at the

market rate.

The Commission reviewed the claim for individual treat-
ment focusing its analysis, at this definitive stage, mainly
on those areas having a direct impact on the company's
export activities. On this basis,
it considered that the
arguments put forward by the company were valid, and,
since it was also considered that the level of state inter-
ference was not such as to permit circumvention of
measures if exporters are given different rates of duty,
the company's claim has been accepted.

The complainant objected strongly to the granting of
individual treatment to this producer at the definitive
the Commission had rejected the
stage, given that
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. It argued that 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
the duties,
because the individual margin was slightly lower than
the countrywide margin.

for circumvention of

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 defin-
itive 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.

( i i ) C o m p a r i s o n

(24)

The complainant also questioned the basis on which the
normal value had been compared to the export price, i.e.
on a 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 countries, and that if the compar-
ison had been made on an ex-works basis, the dumping
margin would have been significantly greater.

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 argu-
ments,
it is considered 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.

( i i i ) D u m p i n g m a r g i n

(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:

28,5 %

41,0 %.

JSC Nevinnomyssky Azot:

All other companies:

(c) Belarus

( i ) C o m p a r i s o n

(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.

( i i ) D u m p i n g m a r g i n

(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
dumping margin calculation. In addition, it claimed that
the quantities exported had been miscalculated because

22.9.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 238/19

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.

(36)

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

is

it

(30) With regard to the other claims, the available informa-
tion 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 %.

(d) Ukraine

( i ) C o m p a r i s o n

(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.

( i i ) D u m p i n g m a r g i n

(33)

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

countrywide dumping margin,
On this basis,
expressed as a percentage of the cif Community frontier
price,

is 50,4 %.

the

decumulation of
Republic are therefore confirmed.

imports originating in the Slovak

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 Article 3(4) of the
Basic Regulation, the provisional findings as described in
recital 41 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

2. Price undercutting

(37)

(38)

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 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 under-
imports originating in Belarus
cutting margin for
mentioned in recital 46 of the provisional Regulation.

Since the customs duty applicable for imports origin-
ating in Russia also changed in 1999, the undercutting
imports originating in Russia was also
margin for
accordingly recalculated. The revised weighted average
price undercutting expressed as a percentage of
the
Community industry's prices amounts to 6,5 %. Other-
wise, the methodology set out in recital 46 of the provi-
sional duty Regulation is confirmed.

E. DEFINITION OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

3. Situation of the Community industry

(34)

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

(39)

F. INJURY

1. Cumulation

(35)

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
their prices did not
undercut those of the Community industry. The provi-
the
sional

findings regarding the appropriateness of

Certain parties submitted that for the injury analysis the
situation in 1995 should be compared to that in the
investigation period, and not the situation in 1997 to
that 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 exam-
ination of injury. Indeed this would amount to a require-
ment 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 investigation period serve
as
the investigation
covered the period between 1995 and the investigation

In the current case,

reference.

L 238/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22.9.2000

period and not just 1995 and the investigation period as
suggested by these parties. Taking into account develop-
ments throughout this period, a marked 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.

UAN 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.

(45)

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

G. CAUSATION

(40)

Certain exporting producers submitted that the Commis-
sion 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 informa-
tion, the findings as described in recitals 62 and 63 of
the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

(46)

(47)

H. COMMUNITY INTEREST

(41)

In the absence of any new information the provisional
findings as described in recitals 64 to 69 of the provi-
sional Regulation are 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, the Commis-
sion, 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 %.

Since the customs duty applicable for imports origin-
ating 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 indi-
injury margin was calculated accordingly. The
vidual
new injury margins for imports originating in Russia
however remain below the dumping margins found.

I. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

3. Undertakings

(42)

(43)

(44)

1. Termination of the proceeding in respect of the

Slovak Republic

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

share small and stable,

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

(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 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
circumstances,
the undertakings
would have proved impracticable.

the monitoring of

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

22.9.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 238/21

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 dumping margins. For the reasons set out in recitals 15 and 19 of
the provisional Regulation, it is confirmed that the residual duties for Algeria and Lithuania should
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 anti-dumping
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

EUR 6,88

EUR 17,86

5,8

EUR 3,98

27,4

32,0

45,7

EUR 17,80

EUR 20,11

EUR 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 Regulation with its name and address,
including entities related to those
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 Commission (1) forthwith with all relevant information,
in
particular any 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 Regula-
tion accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.

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, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of the
provisional anti-dumping duty, imposed by Regulation (EC) No 617/2000, should be definitively
collected at the rate of the duty definitively imposed,

(1) European Commission

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

L 238/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22.9.2000

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

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

2.

The amount of duty in euro per tonne shall be as shown below for the countries concerned:

Country

Company

Amount of duty
(per tonne)

TARIC additional code

Algeria

Belarus

All companies

All companies

Lithuania

All companies

Russia

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

All other companies

Ukraine

All companies

EUR 6,88

A999

EUR 17,86

EUR 3,98

—

—

EUR 17,80

A176

EUR 20,11

EUR 26,17

A999

—

In cases where goods have been damaged before entry into free circulation and, therefore, the price
3.
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.

Notwithstanding paragraph 1,

4.
circulation in accordance with the provisions of Article 2.

the definitive duty shall not apply to imports released for free

5.

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

The proceeding concerning imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in the

6.
Slovak Republic shall be terminated.

1.

Imports pursuant to the undertaking offered by:

Article 2

Company

Fertalge Industries spa
12, Chemin AEK Gadouche
Hydra
Alger

Country

Algeria

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

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

22.9.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 238/23

The exemption shall be conditional upon presentation to the relevant Member State's customs
2.
services of a valid undertaking invoice issued by the exporting company containing the essential elements
listed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 617/2000.

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.

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

Article 4

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

Done at Brussels, 18 September 2000.

For the Council

The President

H. VÉDRINE