Council Regulation (EC) No 163/2002 of 28 January 2002 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 368/98 on imports of glyphosate originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of glyphosate consigned from Malaysia or Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or Taiwan or not, and terminating the investigation in respect of imports from one Malaysian and one Taiwanese exporting producer
Date: 2002-01-28
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: China, Malaysia, Taiwan, anti-dumping duty, chemical product, herbicide, import, originating product

31.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 30/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 163/2002

of 28 January 2002

extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 368/98 on imports of
glyphosate originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of glyphosate consigned from
Malaysia or Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or Taiwan or not, and terminating
the investigation in respect of imports from one Malaysian and one Taiwanese exporting producer

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22
December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from
countries not members of the European Community (1), and in
particular Article 13 thereof,

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

Whereas:

A. PROCEDURE

1. Existing measures

(1)

(2)

By Regulation (EC) No 368/98 (2) (‘the definitive Regula-
tion’), the Council
imposed an anti-dumping duty of
24 % on imports of glyphosate originating in the
People's Republic of China (‘the PRC’). By Regulation
(EC) No 1086/2000 (3), the rate of duty applicable was
increased to 48 % pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation
(EC) No 384/96 (‘the basic Regulation’).

2. Request

On 26 March 2001, the Commission received a request
pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation from
the European Glyphosate Association (EGA) to investi-
gate the alleged circumvention of
the anti-dumping
measures imposed on imports of glyphosate originating
in the PRC. The request was submitted on behalf of a
major proportion of Community producers of glypho-
sate (‘the Community industry’).

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

(EC) No 2238/2000 (OJ L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2).

(2) OJ L 47, 18.2.1998, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 124, 25.5.2000, p. 1.

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

The request alleged that there had been a change in the
trade following the imposition of anti-
pattern of
dumping measures on imports of glyphosate originating
in the PRC as shown by a significant increase in imports
from Malaysia and Taiwan while imports from the PRC
had decreased substantially in the meantime.

This change in the pattern of trade was alleged to stem
from the transhipment of glyphosate originating in the
PRC via Malaysia or Taiwan and also from the formula-
tion in Malaysia or Taiwan of glyphosate originating in
the PRC.
It was claimed that the formulation was a
relatively simple operation, which mainly consists of
diluting glyphosate salt with water and blending it with
surfactant. It was also claimed that this operation led to
an increase of the shipment costs for the importers. The
request concluded, consequently, that there was insuffi-
cient due cause or economic justification for these prac-
tices other than the existence of the anti-dumping duty
on glyphosate originating in the PRC.

Finally, the Community industry alleged that the reme-
dial effects of the existing anti-dumping duty on glypho-
sate were being undermined both in terms of quantities
and price and that dumping was taking place in relation
to the normal values previously established, for imports
consigned from Malaysia or Taiwan.

3. Initiation

The Commission initiated an investigation by Regulation
(EC) No 909/2001 (4) (‘initiating Regulation’). Pursuant
to Article 13(3) and Article 14(5) of the basic Regula-
it directed the customs authorities to register
tion,
imports of glyphosate consigned from Malaysia or
Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or
Taiwan or not, as from 10 May 2001.

(4) OJ L 127, 9.5.2001, p. 35.

L 30/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.1.2002

(7)

(8)

(9)

4. Investigation

The Commission advised the representatives of Malaysia,
the PRC and Taiwan of the initiation of the invest-
igation. Questionnaires were sent to the producers and
exporters in Malaysia and Taiwan named in the request,
to the importers in the Community and to the exporters
in the PRC known to the Commission as well as to other
interested parties who came
forward within the
prescribed time limit. Interested parties were given the
opportunity to make their views known in writing and
to request a hearing within the time limit set in the
initiating Regulation.

A number of exporting producers in Malaysia and
Taiwan, as well as Community producers and importers,
made their views known in writing. All parties who so
requested within the above time limit, and who demon-
there were particular reasons why they
strated that
should be heard, were granted the opportunity to be
heard.

No reply to the questionnaire was received from expor-
ters of glyphosate in the PRC. Replies to the question-
naire were received within the prescribed time limits
from 11 unrelated importers, three Malaysian exporting
producers and one Taiwanese exporting producer that
also acted as a trader. The Commission carried out
the following
verification visits at
companies:

the premises of

Malaysian exporting producers:

— Crop Protection (M) Sdn. Bhd., Klang, Selangor D.E.,

Malaysia,

— Kenso Corporation (M) Sdn. Bhd., Petaling Jaya,

Selangor D.E., Malaysia,

— Mastra Industries Sdn. Bhd., Port Klang, Selangor
D.E., Malaysia and its related exporter Agrimart Sdn.
Bhd, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia;

Taiwanese exporting producer/trader:

— Sinon Corporation, Taichung, Taiwan.

5. Investigation period

(10)

The investigation period covered the period from 1
April 2000 to 31 March 2001 (‘the IP’). Data were
collected from 1994 up to the IP to investigate the
change in the pattern of trade.

B. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

1. General considerations/degree of cooperation

(a) M a l a y s i a

behalf of Halex Industries (M) Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia) and
from Agrolex Private Limited (Singapore),
involved as
producer and exporter respectively, in the formulation
of glyphosate acid in Malaysia and exports to the
Community.
It was claimed that the submission had
already been made within the time limits provided for in
the basic Regulation and the initiating Regulation.
However,
the Commission had no record of earlier
receipt; no proof of successful transmission could be
provided and it appeared that the submission had been
faxed to a telephone number. Given that the submission
was received at such an advanced stage of the invest-
igation and,
in addition, would have required further
explanations and verification, these companies could not
be considered as cooperating in the investigation and,
therefore, findings in respect of them are made on the
basis of the facts available in accordance with Article
18(1) of the basic Regulation.

(12)

The verification visit revealed that Mastra Industries (M)
Sdn. Bhd.
(‘Mastra Industries’) was related to another
company in Malaysia belonging to the Nufarm group,
Nufarm Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. (‘Nufarm Malaysia’) and that
Nufarm Malaysia was, at least, involved in imports into
Malaysia of glyphosate acid originating in the PRC and
in the formulation of such glyphosate acid in Malaysia.
Nufarm Malaysia had stated at the beginning of the
investigation that neither it nor any related subsidiary
company of Nufarm Malaysia had at any time exported
any glyphosate products, either directly or indirectly, to
any country in the Community. In reply to this, the
Commission informed Nufarm Malaysia that it was not
required to fill in the questionnaire if it had not been
involved in imports of glyphosate into Malaysia from
the PRC or exports of glyphosate to the Community
during the IP. Nufarm Malaysia subsequently merely
confirmed its original statement. In its reply to the ques-
tionnaire, Mastra Industries presented the ‘Mastra group’
of related companies, to which it belonged, without
mentioning its relationship to Nufarm Malaysia and
other relationships to the Nufarm group (1).

(13) As in all anti-dumping investigations, a determination
has to be made in respect of the economic entity formed
by the cooperating exporting producer and all its related
companies which are involved with the production
and/or trade of the product concerned. This was made
impossible by the absence of verified information on the
corporate structure, purchases, production/processing
(including costs) and sales of Nufarm Malaysia.
In
accordance with Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation,
Mastra Industries was informed of these findings and
invited to present comments and further explanations.

(11)

In September 2001, namely three months after the
expiry of the deadline for receipt of replies to the ques-
the Commission received a submission on
tionnaire,

(1) Two companies related to Mastra Industries, Mastra K.K. (Japan) and
Mastra Corporation Pty Ltd (Australia), were related to Nufarm
(Australia) via shareholdings and directorship.

31.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 30/3

(14) Mastra Industries confirmed its relationship with Nufarm
Malaysia and explained that the Commission reply to
Nufarm Malaysia led Mastra Industries to believe that
Nufarm Malaysia was not involved in any way. It should,
however, be noted that (i) this reply was given on the
basis of wrong information submitted by Nufarm
Malaysia and (ii) the questionnaire drew attention to the
necessity for all related companies involved with the
product concerned to complete the questionnaire. A
definition of related company was also provided in the
questionnaire. In addition, following analysis of Mastra
Industries' questionnaire reply, Mastra Industries was
asked to identify the shareholders of the related compa-
nies listed as being all its subsidiaries or other related
companies in all countries involved directly or indirectly
with glyphosate. Mastra Industries failed to disclose
before the verification visit the shareholders of two of
these
and Mastra
Corporation Pty Ltd (Australia), which would have
shown the relationship to the Nufarm group. Nufarm
Malaysia eventually offered to provide every information
required to verify that it had never exported any glypho-
sate products to the Community, but did not submit any
supporting information, which would have been, in any
case, submitted at a very advanced stage of the invest-
igation.

companies, Mastra K.K (Japan)

(15) Given that incorrect information has been submitted and
that necessary information (concerning the relationship
between Nufarm Malaysia and Mastra Industries) and the
questionnaire reply by Nufarm Malaysia have not been
provided within the time limits provided for in the basic
Regulation, findings in respect of Mastra Industries and
its related companies are made on the basis of the facts
available in accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic
Regulation.

(16)

The two exporting producers in Malaysia that cooper-
ated accounted for less than 50 % (1)
in volume and
value of the total imports of glyphosate from Malaysia
during the IP, as reported by Eurostat at TARIC level.

(b) T a i w a n

2. Product under consideration and like product

(18)

ex 2931 00 95

The product under consideration is, as defined in the
investigation, glyphosate currently classifiable
original
(TARIC code
within CN codes
2931 00 95*80)
and ex 3808 30 27 (TARIC code
3808 30 27*10). Glyphosate is a herbicide which can be
produced in different grades or forms of concentration
of which the main ones are the following: acid (generally
with 95 % glyphosate content), cake (generally with
84 % glyphosate content), salt
(generally with 46 %
glyphosate content), and formulated (generally with
36 %, by volume, glyphosate content), the last being the
only form that is used as an end product.

(19)

The investigation showed that the glyphosate exported
to the Community originating in the PRC and that
consigned from Malaysia or Taiwan to the Community
have the same basic physical and chemical characteris-
tics and have the same uses. They are therefore to be
considered as like products within the meaning of
Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

3. Change in the pattern of trade

(a) Cooperating exporting producers

M a l a y s i a

(20)

The two cooperating exporting producers in Malaysia
substantially increased their exports to the Community
between 1998 and the IP, following the imposition of
measures on glyphosate originating in the PRC. The rate
of increase was even higher than that registered for the
non-cooperating companies and in both cases export
records showed a clear change in the pattern of trade to
the Community at the beginning of 1998.

T a i w a n

(21)

The cooperating exporting producer in Taiwan, Sinon
Corporation, re-started its exports to the Community in
1998 and these increased substantially between then and
the IP.

(17)

The sole Taiwanese exporting producer that cooperated
in the investigation, Sinon Corporation, accounted for
less than 25 % (1)
the total
imports of glyphosate from Taiwan during the IP, as
reported by Eurostat at TARIC level.

in volume and value of

(1) For reasons of confidentiality, precise data are not given.

(22) A change in the pattern of trade was therefore estab-
lished in respect of the cooperating exporting producers
and coincided in the case of both exporting countries
with the entry into force of anti-dumping measures on
glyphosate originating in the PRC at the beginning of
1998.

C o n c l u s i o n

L 30/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.1.2002

(b) Non-cooperating companies

(25)

Eurostat data at CN level for the period 1994 to the IP
show, at the beginning of 1998, a marked change in the
pattern of trade from a slow increase to a significant
increase, similar to that observed at TARIC level.

(23) As far as the non-cooperating companies are concerned,
the Commission had to establish the exports to the
Community on the basis of the facts available pursuant
to Article 18 of the basic Regulation. Considering that
the CN codes also include products other than glypho-
sate, it was considered that Eurostat data at TARIC level
were the best information available to establish the find-
ings in respect of exports to the Community following
the imposition of the anti-dumping duty on imports of
glyphosate originating in the PRC. Deductions were
made in respect of the export quantities of the cooper-
ating exporting producers (1). Eurostat data at TARIC
level were only available for full calendar years begin-
ning from 1998. Therefore, the comparison of the share
of each country in the total volume of imports of glyph-
osate into the Community during the original
IP
(September 1994 to August 1995) and the current IP
was made based on Eurostat data at CN level. For the
same reason, Eurostat data at CN level were used to
confirm the pattern of trade over the period 1994 to the
IP, which confirmed the conclusions reached with Euro-
stat data at TARIC level (2).

T a i w a n

(26)

Imports into the Community of glyphosate from Taiwan
increased from 36 tonnes (3) in 1998 to 922 tonnes (3)
of 95 % acid equivalent in the IP, reaching a peak of
1 335 tonnes (3) in 2000. The share of Taiwan in the
total volume of
into the
Community has also increased from 0,8 % in the orig-
inal
IP to 3 % in the current IP. Analysis at TARIC
level (4) showed an increased share, rising from 1,4 % to
19,7 %.

imports of glyphosate

(27)

Eurostat data at CN level for the period 1994 to the IP
shows, at the beginning of 1998, a marked change in
the pattern of trade from a slow decrease to a significant
increase, similar to that observed at TARIC level.

M a l a y s i a

(28)

(24)

Imports
into the Community of glyphosate from
Malaysia increased from 740 tonnes (3)
in 1998 to
in the IP,
1 045 tonnes (3) of 95 % acid equivalent
reaching a peak of 1 370 tonnes (3) in 1999. The share
of Malaysia in the total volume of imports of glyphosate
into the Community has also increased from 2,3 % in
the original IP to 5,2 % in the current IP. Analysis at
TARIC level (4) showed an increased share, rising from
22 % to 29,7 %.

in order

to allow for

(1) Analysis of Eurostat data at TARIC level was carried out after first
converting quantities to 95 % acid equivalent, using the best infor-
mation available,
forms of
concentration.
Import statistics registered under the TARIC code
3808 30 27*10 were converted, using the most common 36 %
glyphosate content for formulated product. For imports registered
under the TARIC code 2931 00 95*80, since no information was
available on the proportion of acid and salt imported and on their
concentration, conversion to 95 % was limited to the quantities
declared by the cooperating exporting producers and deducted from
the total

the different

imports.

(2) For the analysis of Eurostat data at CN level, quantities were not
converted to 95 % acid equivalent because this was considered unre-
liable given that
than
glyphosate.

include products other

the CN codes

(3) Real figures have been amended by a certain percentage to preserve

confidentiality.

(4) The volume in the original IP was established by applying to the
quantities registered at CN level the ratio of quantities at CN level/
quantities at TARIC level
for 1998 and converting to 95 % acid
equivalent.

T h e P R C

From the imposition of the measures, the share of the
PRC in the total volume of imports of glyphosate into
the Community has decreased from 24,6 % in the orig-
inal IP to 8,5 % in the current IP. Analysis at TARIC
level (4)
showed a decreased share, changing from
24,6 % to 11,9 %, and an even more substantial
decrease, from 19,9 % to 1,5 %,
if imports under the
normal customs regime (subject to the payment of the
anti-dumping duty) are exclusively considered, since
most
inward processing
regimes.

imports were made under

(29)

Export statistics from the PRC at a level equivalent to
CN level show, for glyphosate not put up for retail sale,
a substantial increase between 1997 and the IP of the
exports to Malaysia (from an index of 100 to 171) and
Taiwan (from an index of 100 to 187).

C o n c l u s i o n

(30) A change in the pattern of trade was therefore estab-
lished in respect of the non-cooperating companies and
coincided, in the case of both exporting countries, with
the entry into force of anti-dumping measures on glyph-
osate originating in the PRC at the beginning of 1998.

31.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 30/5

4. Insufficient due cause or economic justification

duty on glyphosate originating in the PRC did not drive
the change in its pattern of trade.

(a) Cooperating exporting producers

C o n c l u s i o n

(31)

(32)

M a l a y s i a

Crop Protection (M) Sdn. Bhd. (‘Crop Protection’) trans-
formed purchased glyphosate acid, part of which was
originating in the PRC, into salt or formulated products.
However, their purchases of PRC-origin acid increased
less significantly than their purchases of non-PRC-origin
acid and did not show a constant movement (plunge in
1998,
increase up to 2000, decrease within the IP).
Moreover, most of the supply of PRC origin acid was
caused by Monsanto (M) Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia) (1) due to
its inability to supply Crop Protection with the US origin
acid it had ordered. Direct purchases from another
supplier in the PRC were minor. Additionally, to satisfy
customers' requests, Crop Protection limited the use of
acid originating in the PRC for production of glyphosate
exported to the Community. It was therefore considered
that Crop Protection reasonably established that
the
imposition of
the anti-dumping duty on glyphosate
originating in the PRC did not drive the change in its
pattern of trade.

Kenso Corporation (M) Sdn. Bhd. (‘Kenso Corporation’)
transformed glyphosate acid exclusively supplied from
the PRC into salt or
formulated products. Kenso
Corporation advanced arguments to justify economically
the formulation in Malaysia of PRC origin acid. These
arguments related to the low know-how in the PRC and
cost efficiency in Malaysia. However, this did not explain
why Kenso Corporation started to sell to a customer for
export to the Community soon after the time of the
imposition of the anti-dumping measures on the PRC.
Though concerned by the investigation, this customer
did not cooperate. The general pattern and develop-
ments of Kenso Corporation's exports did not explain
either
their appearance on the Community market.
Therefore, the change in the pattern of trade remained
unexplained.

T a i w a n

(33)

Sinon Corporation produces glyphosate starting from
the initial stage of producing glyphosate acid and also
formulates purchased glyphosate acid which does not
originate in the PRC, both operations being carried out
in Taiwan. The investigation has shown that Sinon has
exported to the Community its own produced product,
with the exception of limited quantities of formulated
glyphosate purchased from a Malaysian company and
shipped directly from Malaysia to the Community. It
was therefore considered that Sinon Corporation reason-
ably established that the imposition of the anti-dumping

(1) Related to Monsanto Europe, one of the complainants.

(34) Given the above, it is considered that Crop Protection
there were
and Sinon Corporation have shown that
reasonable grounds, other than the imposition of the
anti-dumping duty on glyphosate originating in the PRC,
for the change in their pattern of trade. Consequently,
the investigation with regard to glyphosate produced by
these two companies should be terminated.

(35)

Kenso Corporation failed to submit evidence of suffi-
cient due cause or economic justification for the change
trade. An investigation was conse-
in its pattern of
quently carried out, in its respect, to assess the under-
mining of the remedial effects of the duty and the exis-
tence of dumping in relation to the normal values previ-
ously established.

(36)

(37)

(38)

(b) Non-cooperating companies

In the absence of cooperation, and given the coincidence
in time with the imposition of the anti-dumping meas-
ures on the PRC, it has to be concluded that the change
in the pattern of trade stemmed from the imposition of
the anti-dumping duty rather than from any other suffi-
cient due cause or economic justification within the
meaning of the second sentence of Article 13(1) of the
basic Regulation.

This conclusion is reinforced by the following. Export
statistics from the PRC show a substantial increase in
exports to Taiwan or Malaysia between 1997 and the IP
(see recital 29) for glyphosate not put up for retail sale
(i.e. non formulated). The significant increase in imports
to the Community from Malaysia or Taiwan was mainly
registered on the non formulated glyphosate. Exports
in Taiwanese imports
from the PRC to Taiwan were,
statistics, either (i) not registered (systematically for
formulated glyphosate, the import of which into Taiwan
from mainland China is,
in any case, prohibited by
Taiwanese customs law) or (ii) registered in much lower
quantities for non formulated glyphosate.

The Commission has also investigated whether
the
development, in Malaysia and Taiwan, of transformation
operations of the glyphosate acid into another form (salt
or formulated product) could justify the change in the
pattern of trade. The added value of the operations is
minor (around 5 % on the cost of manufacturing). Infor-
mation on manufacturing and transport costs from
cooperating companies in Malaysia (quantities from
Taiwan are too low to draw conclusions) give no
evidence that
locally
rather than in the Community is cost saving. Even if
formulating acid locally rather than in the Community

transforming the acid into salt

L 30/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.1.2002

for

the

increased shipping costs
can compensate
involved,
this does not explain why exports to the
Community surged immediately after the imposition of
anti-dumping measures on the PRC.

(39)

It was, therefore, concluded that no reasonable grounds,
other than avoiding the existing anti-dumping duty on
imports of glyphosate originating in the PRC, could be
established for the change in the pattern of trade of the
non-cooperating companies and that the investigation of
the other criteria should be continued in their respect.

(40)

(41)

5. Undermining of the remedial effects of the duty
in terms of the prices and/or the quantities of the
like products

In view of the conclusions reached in recitals 31 to 39,
the analysis of the undermining of the remedial effects
of the duty in terms of quantities and prices has been
limited to those economic operators for which the
change in pattern of trade was found to have insufficient
due cause or economic justification.

change

a quantitative

Since the imposition of measures in the original invest-
igation,
in the pattern of
Community imports occurred, which undermined the
remedial effects of the measures in terms of the quant-
ities imported into the Community. The imports of
glyphosate from the PRC in the IP of the original invest-
igation (1 397 tonnes) were exceeded by exports from
Taiwan and Malaysia in the IP (representing 1 864
tonnes).

(45)

(46)

6. Evidence of dumping in relation to the normal
values previously established for like or similar
products

It has to be recalled that Article 13(1) of the basic
Regulation requires evidence of dumping in relation to
the normal values previously established for the like or
similar products but does not require the establishment
of a new dumping margin.

The investigation into the absence of movement, or
insufficient movement, in the resale prices or subsequent
selling prices in the Community, concluded by Regula-
tion (EC) No 1086/2000, re-examined the normal values
of the original case (see recital 1). Consequently, the
normal values used in the present investigation were
those as re-examined, since these represent the normal
values previously established for the like or similar prod-
ucts in accordance with Article 13(1) of
the basic
Regulation.

(a) Cooperating exporting producer

(47) Given that the change in the pattern of trade of Crop
Protection and Sinon Corporation was considered as
having a due cause other than the imposition of the
anti-dumping duty on the PRC, the evidence of dumping
was investigated only in respect of the exports to the
Community of Kenso Corporation.

(42) With regard to prices, and regarding the cooperating
Malaysian exporting producer Kenso Corporation, the
investigation revealed that the export prices submitted
by this company (1) are still below the non-depressed
level of Community prices as established in the original
investigation. In fact, they were even lower than the
investigation.
export prices established in the original

(43)

the investigation also revealed that

Regarding non-cooperating companies from Malaysia
and Taiwan,
the
prices of these imports, on the basis of the responses
provided by unrelated importers in the Community and
representing a volume of around 50 % of the Chinese
imports in the previous investigation, were also below
the non-depressed level of Community prices as estab-
lished in the original investigation and even lower than
the export prices established in the original investigation.

(48)

(49)

(44)

It is therefore concluded that the imports concerned
undermined the remedial effects of the duty both in
terms of quantities and prices.

(1) The export prices were duly adjusted for import duty and post

importation costs.

For the purpose of a fair comparison between the
normal value and the export price, due allowance, in the
form of adjustments, was made for differences which
affect prices and price comparability. These adjustments
were made in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic
Regulation in respect of level of trade, transport, insur-
ance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, credit and
commissions.

In the original
investigation, normal value was estab-
lished for the two forms of glyphosate produced and
sold in the selected analogue country (Brazil), i.e. glyph-
osate acid and formulated glyphosate. Since exports by
Kenso Corporation of another form was negligible in the
IP and Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation does not
require the establishment of a new dumping margin, no
normal value was established for this type. In accord-
ance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation,
the weighted average normal value of each form of
glyphosate exported to the Community was compared
to the weighted average export price of
the corre-
sponding form. The difference, expressed as a percentage
of the cif import price at the Community frontier duty
unpaid, showed a significant level of dumping.

31.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 30/7

(50)

(51)

(52)

(53)

(54)

(b) Non-cooperating companies

circumventing the anti-dumping duties, namely Crop
Protection and Sinon Corporation.

The export prices were established on the basis of the
total export value and volume reported by Eurostat at
from which the quantities and values
TARIC level,
exported by the cooperating exporting producers were
deducted for their respective countries.

(56)

In accordance with the above findings that these compa-
nies were found not to have circumvented the anti-
dumping measures in force, these companies should also
be exempted from the extension of
the measures
envisaged.

The weighted average price of exports registered under
the TARIC code 3808 30 27*10 (herbicides, glyphosate)
was compared to the normal value for formulated
glyphosate. The other forms of glyphosate are registered
under the TARIC code 2931 00 95*80 (organo-inor-
ganic compounds, glyphosate). To ensure a proper
comparison which was unaffected by the product mix of
the exports registered under
the
weighted average export price was compared to both the
normal value for glyphosate acid and to the lower
normal value for formulated glyphosate. In both cases,
substantial

levels of dumping were established.

this TARIC code,

For the purpose of a fair comparison between the
normal value and the export price, due allowance, in the
form of adjustments, was made for differences which
affect prices and price comparability. These adjustments
were made in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic
Regulation in respect of transport, insurance, handling,
loading and ancillary costs, credit and commissions.

In accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic
Regulation, the comparison of weighted average normal
values and weighted average export prices expressed as a
percentage of the cif import price at the Community
frontier duty unpaid, showed a significant
level of
dumping.

C. REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION

OR EXTENSION OF THE DUTY

The Commission received requests for exemption from
the registration or measures from four unrelated impor-
ters and two cooperating exporting producers, Crop
Protection and Sinon Corporation. Given that the alleged
circumvention was taking place outside the Community,
exemption of imports from registration or measures was
dependent on the findings in respect of the exporters.
No decision could therefore be taken by the Commis-
the exemption requests
sion purely on the basis of
presented by individual
Importers will,
however, benefit from exemption from registration or
measures to the extent
their imports are from
that
exporters which have been granted such an exemption.

importers.

(57)

(58)

(59)

D. MEASURES

In view of the above finding of circumvention within the
meaning of the second sentence of Article 13(1) of the
basic Regulation and in accordance with the first
sentence of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the
existing anti-dumping measures on glyphosate origin-
ating in the PRC should be extended to the same
product consigned from Malaysia or Taiwan, whether
declared as originating in Malaysia or Taiwan or not.
Exception should be made for glyphosate consigned
from Malaysia and produced by Crop Protection and for
glyphosate consigned from Taiwan and produced by
Sinon Corporation.

In accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation,
which provides that measures may be applied against
registered imports from the date of registration,
the
anti-dumping duty should be collected on imports of
glyphosate consigned from Malaysia or Taiwan which
entered the Community under registration imposed by
the initiating Regulation, except on imports of glypho-
sate consigned from Malaysia and produced by Crop
Protection and of glyphosate consigned from Taiwan
and produced by Sinon Corporation.

The exemption from this extension which is granted to
Crop Protection and Sinon Corporation was established
on the basis of the findings of the present investigation.
Therefore,
it reflects the situation found during that
investigation with respect to these companies. The non-
extension is thus exclusively applicable to imports of
products consigned from Malaysia and produced by
Crop Protection, and to those consigned from Taiwan
and produced by Sinon Corporation. Imported products
produced by any other
specifically
mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with
its name and address, including entities related to those
specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from the excep-
tion and should be subject to the duty rate imposed by
the definitive Regulation.

company not

(55)

By Regulation (EC) No 2593/2001 (1), the Commission
amended the initiating Regulation in order to cease
registration of imports of glyphosate produced by those
companies in the countries concerned found not to be

(1) OJ L 345, 29.12.2001, p. 29.

(60) Any claim requesting the application of this exception
would have to be addressed to the Commission forth-
in particular any
with, with all relevant information,
modification in the company's activities
linked to
production and export sales.

L 30/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.1.2002

(61)

Taiwanese or Malaysian exporters requesting an exemp-
tion pursuant to Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation
will be required to complete a questionnaire in order to
enable the Commission to determine whether an exemp-
tion may be warranted, and the Commission would
normally also carry out an on-spot verification visit.

(62) Where

exemption is

considered appropriate,

the
Commission would, after consultation of the Advisory
Committee,
amend the Regulation accordingly by
updating the list of companies benefiting from the
exception.

E. PROCEDURE

(63)

Interested parties were informed of the essential facts
and considerations on the basis of which the Commis-
sion intended to propose the extension of the definitive
anti-dumping duty in force and were given the oppor-
tunity to comment. No comments which were of a
nature to change the above conclusions were received,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.
The definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation
(EC) No 368/98 on imports of glyphosate falling within CN
codes
ex 2931 00 95 (TARIC code 2931 00 95*89) and
ex 3808 30 27 (TARIC code 3808 30 27*19) originating in
the People's Republic of China as amended by Regulation (EC)
No 1086/2000, is hereby extended to imports of glyphosate
consigned from Malaysia (whether declared as originating in
and
(TARIC codes
Malaysia
3808 30 27*11) with the exception of those produced by Crop
Protection (M) Sdn. Bhd., Lot 746, Jalan Haji Sirat 4 1/2 Miles,
off Jalan Kapar, 42100 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
(TARIC additional code A309).

2931 00 95*81

not)

or

No 1086/2000, is hereby extended to imports of glyphosate
consigned from Taiwan (whether declared as originating in
Taiwan
and
3808 30 27*11), with the exception of
those produced by
Sinon Corporation, No. 23, Sec. 1, Mei Chuan W. Rd,
Taichung, Taiwan (TARIC additional code A310).

2931 00 95*81

(TARIC

codes

not)

or

3.
The duty extended by paragraph 1 and 2 shall be
collected on imports registered in accordance with Article 2 of
Regulation (EC) No 909/2001 and Article 13(3) and Article
14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96.

The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall

4.
apply.

Article 2

Requests for exemption from the duty extended by
1.
Article 1 shall be made in writing in one of
the official
languages of the Community and must be signed by a person
authorised to represent the applicant. The request must be sent
to the following address:

Commission of the European Communities
Directorate-General for Trade
Unit C-3
B-1049 Brussels
Fax (32-2) 295 65 05.

after

The Commission,

the Advisory
2.
the exemption of
Committee, shall authorise, by decision,
imports from companies which do not circumvent the anti-
dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 368/98 from
the duty extended by Article 1.

consulting

Article 3

Customs authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the
registration of imports, established in accordance with Article 2
of Regulation (EC) No 909/2001.

2.
The definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation
(EC) No 368/98 on imports of glyphosate falling within CN
codes
ex 2931 00 95 (TARIC code 2931 00 95*89) and
ex 3808 30 27 (TARIC code 3808 30 27*19) originating in
the People's Republic of China as amended by Regulation (EC)

Article 4

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that
of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communi-
ties.

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

Done at Brussels, 28 January 2002.

For the Council

The President

J. PIQUÉ I CAMPS