Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Poland and Ukraine, and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports originating in Lithuania
Date: 2000-12-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Poland, Ukraine, anti-dumping duty, chemical salt, originating product

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 28.12.2000
COM(2000) 885 final

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the
provisional duty imposed on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Poland
and Ukraine, and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports
originating in Lithuania

(presented by the Commission)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

On 29 October 1999, the Commission opened an anti-dumping investigation with
regard to imports into the Community of ammonium nitrate (AN), originating in
Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine.

The Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 1629/20001, imposed provisional anti-
dumping duties on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Poland 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 Lithuania
covered by the same investigation, since these imports were found not to have been
dumped.

The attached proposal for a Council Regulation is based on the definitive findings on
dumping, injury, causation and Community interest which 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 25 January 2001.

1

OJ L 187, 26.7.2000, p.12.

2

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the
provisional duty imposed on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Poland
and Ukraine, and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports
originating in Lithuania

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 1629/20003
(the "provisional
Regulation")
imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of
ammonium nitrate falling within CN codes 3102 30 90 and 3102 40 90 and
originating in Poland 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
Lithuania, also subject to the same investigation, since these imports were
found not to have been dumped.

B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE

(3)

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

2

3

OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2238/2000, OJ L 257,
11.10.2000, p.2.
OJ L 187, 26.7.2000, p.12.

3

(4)

(5)

ammonium nitrate originating in Poland and Ukraine, 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.

C. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

(7)

Since no new arguments regarding the product concerned and the like product
were put forward by any of the interested parties, the facts and findings as set
out in recitals 7 and 8 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

D. DUMPING

1. Lithuania

a) Normal value

(8)

The complainant, the European Fertiliser Manufacturers Association (EFMA),
made a number of comments on the provisional findings under this heading:

the percentage of profitable domestic sales achieved by the cooperating
exporting producer should have been near to zero because dumped Russian
imports over much of the investigation period (IP) had depressed prices in
Lithuania;

the lowest possible constructed normal value, based on the complainant’s
information, was above export prices and therefore there must have been
dumping;

the Lithuanian producer’s record of low profitability cast doubt on its future
over the medium term. Its sales should not, therefore, have been considered as
being in the ordinary course of trade.

(9)

All these comments were closely examined. With regard to the cost of
production, it should be noted that it had been verified and found not to be
unreliable or underestimated. As far as the level of profitable sales was
concerned, this had been determined on the basis of those sales prices found to
be above the unit cost of production,
in accordance with Article 2(4) of
Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (the “Basic Regulation”). The precise level of
profitable sales cannot be disclosed for reasons of confidentiality but it was
still substantial and could, in accordance with the aforementioned provision,

4

-
-
-
be used as a basis for determining normal value. As far as the impact of
Russian imports on prices was concerned, this had indeed been reflected in
lower sales prices which,
if unprofitable, had been excluded from the
calculation of normal value.

b) Export price, comparison

(10)

the provisional
In the absence of any comments under these headings,
findings, as set out in recitals 11 and 12 of the provisional Regulation are
confirmed.

c) Dumping margin

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

The complainant argued that
the transaction-to-transaction methodology
should have been used to establish the dumping margin, because the weighted
average to weighted average method masked the Lithuanian producer’s pricing
strategy (which was allegedly designed to avoid anti-dumping measures) and
did not reflect the full degree of dumping.

The normal method used to establish whether there is dumping is to compare
the weighted average normal value with the weighted average of all export
transactions, in accordance with Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation. The
transaction-to-transaction method had not been used because of the very large
number of transactions (several thousand) and the insurmountable practical
difficulties involved in matching individual normal values with individual
export prices. This claim was therefore rejected. However, it is noted that even
a comparison of the weighted average normal value with individual export
prices, which was based on a regional pattern found in the export prices,
showed a dumping margin below the de minimis level.

The complainant argued further that as the number of transactions was very
large, sampling should have been applied taking 5.000 tonne export shipments
and comparing them with similar sales to domestic customers.

For the purpose of establishing the dumping margin, sampling of transactions
may be considered appropriate in cases where the product concerned covers a
large number of types/models or where the number of transactions is large,
providing the sample is statistically valid or represents the largest possible
volume of sales, in accordance with Article 17(1) of the Basic Regulation. In
this case, there was only one single type of product, and only one of the
transactions on the export side equalled or exceeded 5.000 tonnes (none on the
domestic side), whereas the total volume sold was several hundred thousand
tonnes. Sampling, therefore, was not considered an appropriate method.

(15)

The dumping margin (0%) established in recital 13 of the provisional
Regulation is therefore confirmed.

a) Normal value, export price

2. Poland

5

(16)

the provisional
In the absence of any comments under these headings,
findings, as set out in recitals 15 to 18 of the provisional Regulation, are
confirmed.

b) Comparison

(17) At

the provisional stage,

to traders while domestic

the level of trade claim concerning the price
difference between sales to traders and dealers had been rejected. Since then,
the exporting producer in question was able to clarify the situation. Export
sales were made
(with one
unrepresentative exception) made to dealers. On this basis, a downward
to the price to dealers was granted. In order to quantify this
adjustment
adjustment, a lump-sum corresponding to 10 % of the gross margin (SG&A
plus profit on dealers’ sales) was deducted from the normal value. This lump-
sum constitutes a surrogate for the dealers’ mark-up. It was also found that the
same adjustment should be granted to the other exporting producer.

sales were

(18) At

the provisional stage,

the in-season/off-season adjustment had been
rejected. The producer then claimed that this was not justified because there
was a pronounced seasonal effect on the prices of the product concerned in the
EC market, but no such effect on the prices of ammonium nitrate in the Polish
this difference affected the fair comparison
domestic market. Therefore,
in
between export price and normal value, and merited an adjustment
accordance with Article 2(10)(k) of the Basic Regulation This claim was also
re-examined but had to be rejected because it was found that there was a
seasonal effect on ammonium nitrate prices in the Polish market as well, since
customers had not, as alleged, paid the same prices irrespective of the season.
This had not therefore affected price comparability, within the meaning of
Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation.

c) Dumping margin

(19) One users’ association objected that

taken into
account the depreciation of around 15% in the zloty against the
during the
IP. It is pointed out that average monthly exchange rates were used for the
calculations and therefore any material impact of the exchange rate evolution
was eliminated.

the Commission had not
€

(20)

In the absence of any other comments concerning the methodology used for
the calculation of the dumping margin, the methodology described in recital 20
of the provisional Regulation is confirmed. On this basis, taking into account
the adjustment for level of trade granted, the definitive dumping margins for
the cooperating exporting producers, as well as the residual dumping margin,
expressed as a percentage of the CIF Community frontier price, are set out
below:

Anwil SA

31,2%

Zaklady Azotowe Pulawy SA 22,3%

Residual dumping margin

41.6%

6

3. Ukraine

a) Analogue country, normal value, export price

(21)

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

b) Comparison

(22) At the definitive stage, the basis of the comparison was changed from fob to
ex-works, because of the significant distances between the factories and the
frontier. Moreover, since these costs account for a very high proportion of the
selling price of bulk products such as the product concerned,
the fob
comparison could give an undue advantage to Ukrainian companies. 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. In parallel,
the normal value was also established on an ex-works basis. The co-operating
exporting producers did not make any comment on this change.

c) Dumping margin

(23) One users’ association objected that

the Commission had not

this had affected the dumping margin. It

taken into
account the substantial depreciation of the Ukrainian currency during the IP
and that
is noted that for the
determination of the export price Eurostat figures were used. Information on
export prices contained in Eurostat is expressed in Euros and is compiled on
the basis of monthly exchange rates. Any alleged impact of the depreciation on
the method used by the Commission for the calculation of the dumping margin
is therefore eliminated .

(24)

In view of the change in the basis of comparison from fob to ex-works level,
the countrywide dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of the CIF
Community frontier price, is 67.6%.

E. INJURY

1. Definition of the Community industry

(25)

In the absence of new information the provisional findings concerning the
definition of the Community industry, as described in recital 28 of the
provisional Regulation, is confirmed.

2. Imports from Poland and Ukraine

a) Cumulative assessment

(26) One Polish exporting producer argued that

imports of ammonium nitrate
originating in Poland should not be cumulated with those originating in
Ukraine in view of differences existing in the conditions of competition. The
claim was based on the grounds that while Ukrainian imports were on average

7

(27)

(28)

undercutting the prices of the Community industry by 12.5%, the Polish
imports were on average undercutting those prices by only 2.1%.

In this respect it should be noted that undercutting was found for both Poland
and Ukraine. Moreover, Article 3(4) of the Basic Regulation does not require
that the levels of undercutting are in the same range. Indeed, it has been
confirmed that a cumulative assessment is appropriate since the margin of
dumping is more than de minimis, both countries’ import volumes and market
shares are of the same order of magnitude, substantial and increased compared
to 1995, and having regard to the conditions of competition between the
imports from Poland and Ukraine, it is to be noted that the downward trend in
prices is similar, both countries' export prices were well below the prices of the
Community industry and both were using the same or similar channels of
trade. Given the above, and in the absence of any other new arguments, the
findings of recital 30 of the provisional Regulation concerning the conditions
for a cumulative assessment of the imports from the countries concerned are
confirmed.

b) Volume of imports

Two Ukrainian producers, who had stated at the provisional stage that they
had not exported directly to the Community during the IP, claimed that the
Eurostat figures used for establishing the export price were different from the
data of the Ukrainian Ministry of Statistics, which reported a significantly
lower volume for the same period; however, this claim was not substantiated
by any evidence. Moreover, as these statistics are export statistics which
means that not every sale shown therein will ultimately be shipped to the
specified destination,
import statistics
provided a more accurate picture. In addition the latest Eurostat figures were
reviewed and no discrepancy from the figures used at the provisional stage
was found.

it was concluded that

the Eurostat

c) Undercutting

(29) As regards the price undercutting margins, one Polish exporting producer
argued that the average profit margin of the importers used for the calculation
of the ex quay customs duty paid (DEQ) export prices of the exporting
producers in the Community, should be higher than as the one applied in the
provisional calculation.

(30)

(31)

In this respect, the Commission's provisional findings were based on the
verified information provided by the cooperating importers in the Community.
Since no new or substantiated evidence was provided by the exporting
producer in this respect, the importers' profit margin used for the provisional
determination of price undercutting is confirmed.

The same exporting producer submitted that the unloading costs applied for
the calculation of the DEQ export prices should amount to at least 8.5
per
tonne, and not to 5.9

, as used in the provisional calculation.

€

€

8

(32)

In this respect, the evidence submitted by the exporting producer in support of
its claim contained some elements which did not constitute unloading costs. In
fact, a corrected version of the evidence submitted supported the provisional
findings of the Commission, which are therefore confirmed.

(33) As regards the price difference between granular and prilled ammonium
nitrate, the complainant submitted that after the IP, and in particular by the
2000/2001 season, the apparent price difference between prilled and granular
ammonium nitrate had been eradicated in certain markets and therefore no
allowance should be granted. One Polish exporting producer, however,
claimed that the allowance for the price difference between granular and
prilled ammonium nitrate should be 10
per tonne, as in previous anti-
dumping cases involving ammonium nitrate, and not 5.8
per tonne, as used
in the provisional calculation.

€

€

(34)

It should be noted that in accordance with Article 6(1) of the Basic Regulation,
information relating to a period after the IP should not normally be taken into
account. In considering whether the alleged development of prices after the IP
should be examined, it was concluded that, as no evidence had been provided
that the latest price developments would be of a lasting nature which makes
the imposition of measures at the level proposed manifestly unsuitable, this
information should not be taken into account. As regards the allowance in
respect of the price difference between granular and prilled ammonium nitrate,
the Commission based its provisional findings on the facts available, and
applied the average price difference charged by the Community industry
during the IP.

(35)

In the absence of new evidence, the findings of recital 33 of the provisional
Regulation concerning the undercutting margin calculations are confirmed.

d) Situation of the Community industry

(36)

In addition to the economic factors already analysed at the provisional stage,
information relating to the impact of the magnitude of the margin of dumping,
return on investments, cash flow, wages and the ability to raise capital has
been examined for the period between 1995 and the IP. As regards return on
investments and cash flow, the development was very much in line with that
for profitability as established in recital 39 of the provisional Regulation. With
respect to wages, they broadly followed the decline in the number of persons
employed as established in recital 40 of the provisional Regulation. As
concerns the ability to raise capital, fertiliser production companies form part
of larger groups and no difficulties have been reported. As concerns the impact
on the Community industry of the magnitude of the actual margin of dumping,
given the volume and the prices of the imports from the countries concerned,
this impact cannot be considered to be negligible.

(37) On the basis of the above, the provisional findings as regards the material
injury suffered by the Community industry during the IP are confirmed.

9

3. Causation

(38) One Ukrainian producer argued that, on the basis of Eurostat figures, imports
of the product concerned originating in Ukraine accounted only for 4% of total
this represented an
consumption in the Community,
insignificant quantity which could not cause injury to the Community industry.

it was alleged that

(39)

In this respect, the effects of the imports originating in Ukraine have been
assessed cumulatively with those originating in Poland, pursuant to Article
3(4) of the Basic Regulation. In establishing whether the conditions for
cumulation were met in this case (recital 30 of the provisional Regulation) the
market share of the Ukrainian imports in the total Community consumption
was found not to be negligible. The request was therefore rejected.

(40) One Polish producer submitted that one cause of the material injury suffered
by the Community industry was the fact that prices for cereals had been
declining since 1996 and that this had resulted in price pressure exerted from
farmers on the ammonium nitrate producers' selling prices.

(41) Whilst there was a decline in cereal prices as from 1996, it is to be noted that
ammonium nitrate is a commodity product with a high degree of price
competition and, when compared with the role of factors such as the price
depressive effects of the injurious dumping observed, any downward price
pressure exercised by farmers could therefore not have had a decisive
influence on market prices and could not in themselves have been the cause of
the injury suffered. This argument therefore leads to the conclusion that there
was no break in the causal link between the dumping and the injury found.

(42) One users’ association argued that the Commission had underestimated certain
factors which had allegedly caused the decrease in ammonium nitrate prices
and the subsequent injury suffered by the Community industry, such as a
declining consumption and the allegedly insufficient efforts of rationalisation
undertaken by the Community industry - evidenced, inter alia, by a low rate of
capacity utilisation.

(43)

In addition, an importers' association submitted that the cause of the injury
suffered by the Community industry was the global overcapacity in the
industry.

(44) With respect to the question of declining consumption, it was analysed in the
provisional Regulation and in the absence of any new information, the findings
of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

(45) As concerns the rationalisation efforts undertaken by the Community industry,
it is to be noted that considerable investments were made, unrelated to the
expansion of the production capacity of the product concerned, and a number
of plants have recently been closed, which resulted in a reduction in the
production capacity and the number of employees. It has been found that this
demonstrates that sufficient rationalisation efforts have been made.

10

(46) As concerns the capacity utilisation rate and the question of global
overcapacity in the industry, it is recalled that at the provisional stage this
indicator was not considered to be a meaningful indicator of the situation of
the Community industry (see recital 35 of the provisional Regulation).
Moreover, while there might be, nevertheless, still some overcapacity in the
industry concerned, this element has not been found to have an impact such as
to break the causal link established between the dumping and the injury
suffered by the Community industry.

(47)

In the light of the above and in the absence of any new information, the
provisional findings as described in recitals 46 to 49 of the provisional
Regulation are confirmed.

4. Community interest

(48) One users’ association argued that anti-dumping measures would decrease the
thus putting them in a much more difficult

income of British farmers,
economic situation.

(49)

In this respect, on the basis of information provided by the users’ association,
it was found that, during the IP, fertilisers represented on average 6% of the
total production costs for farmers.

(50) Given that imports from the countries concerned only represented 9% of
ammonium nitrate consumption in the Community market (11% in the UK
market), the level of the anti-dumping duty, and the fact that only part of any
resulting price increase is likely to be passed on to the users, any increase in
farmers’ production costs is likely to be minor. Moreover, were the
Community industry to increase not only the volume of its sales but also its
prices, any such price increase would be limited given the existence of other
to
sources of supply, namely imports from third countries not subject
measures.

(51) On the basis of the above, the limited impact on farmers was considered not to
the imposition of anti-dumping

constitute a compelling reason against
measures.

(52) On the basis of the above,

the provisional findings in recital 53 of the

provisional Regulation are confirmed.

F. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

1. Termination of the proceeding in respect of Lithuania

(53)

In view of the findings on imports originating in Lithuania, the proceeding in
respect of this country should be terminated.

2. Injury elimination level

(54)

In accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping duty
should correspond to the dumping margin unless the injury margin is lower.

11

(55)

(56)

For the purposes of establishing the level of measures to be definitively
imposed, an injury elimination level has been established.

It is to be noted that the arguments and the corresponding findings regarding
the adjustments made for the price difference between granular and prilled
ammonium nitrate in the context of the price undercutting calculation, equally
refer to the injury margins calculation.

In addition, as regards specifically the injury margins calculation,
the
complainant reiterated its statement that the profit margin that the Community
industry might achieve in the absence of injurious dumping should be at least
10%. However, no new evidence was submitted in this respect. At the same
time, a Polish exporting producer submitted that a profit margin of 5% should
be used as had been done in previous anti-dumping cases involving fertilisers.
As set out in recital 56 of the provisional Regulation, given the high profits
reached by the Community industry in the years 1995 and 1996 for the product
under consideration in this proceeding, it was considered that a profit margin
of 8% could reasonably be reached in the absence of injurious dumping.

(57) Given the above, the methodology used for establishing the injury elimination
level as described in recital 56 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.

3. Form and level of definitive measures

(58)

(59)

(60)

The complainant submitted that there were indications of the emergence of
new forms of ammonium nitrate, i.e. mixtures of ammonium nitrate with other
products, whose only purpose is to circumvent possible anti-dumping
measures concerning ammonium nitrate. The attention of
the customs
authorities is drawn to this issue.

In the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article
9(4) of the Basic Regulation, a definitive anti-dumping duty should be
imposed at the level of the injury margins found, except for one Polish
exporting producer for which a definitive anti-dumping duty should be
imposed at the level of the dumping margin found.

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

Basis for AD

Amount of duty

POLAND

Anwil SA

Zaklady Azotowe Pulawy SA

All other companies

UKRAINE

All companies

duty in %

(

25.2

22.3

30.5

43.4

12

€

per tonne)

23.13

20.65

26.91

33.25

(61)

they reflect

the situation found during that

The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation
were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation.
Therefore,
investigation with
respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the country-wide
duty applicable to ‘all other companies’) are thus exclusively applicable to
imports of products originating in the country concerned and produced by the
companies and thus by the specific legal entities 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 these rates and shall be
subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.

(62) Any claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-
dumping duty rates (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 forthwith with all relevant
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 Regulation accordingly by
updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.

information,

3. Collection of provisional duties

(63)

In view of the magnitude 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
duty,
i.e. Regulation (EC) No
1629/2000, should be definitively collected at the rate of the duty definitively
imposed,

imposed by the provisional Regulation,

it

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of ammonium nitrate
other than in aqueous solution and mixtures of ammonium nitrate with calcium
carbonate or other inorganic non-fertilising substances, with a nitrogen content
exceeding 28% by weight, falling within CN codes 3102 30 90 and 3102 40 90 and
originating in Poland and Ukraine.

4

European Commission
Directorate-General for Trade
Directorate B
TERV 0/10
Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200
B-1049 Brussels / Belgium

13

2. The amount of duty in
manufactured by the following companies:

€

per tonne shall be as shown below for the products

Country

Company

POLAND

UKRAINE

Anwil SA
ul.Tourunska 222,
87-805 Wloclawek
Poland
Zaklady Azotowe Pulawy SA
Al. Tysiaclecia P.P. 13,
24-110 Pulawy
Poland
All other companies
All companies

Amount of
€
duty (
per

TARIC
additional code

tonne)
23.13

A174

20.65

A175

26.91
33.25

A999

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 2454/935,
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.

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

5. The proceeding concerning imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Lithuania
shall be terminated.

Article 2

The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant
to
Regulation (EC) No 1629/2000 on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Poland
and Ukraine shall be collected at the rate of the duty definitively imposed. Amounts
secured in excess of the definitive anti-dumping duty shall be released.

Article 3

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

5

OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p.40.

14