Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain zinc oxides originating in the People's Republic of China
Date: 2002-02-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, dumping, import, originating product, oxide, zinc

29.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 262 E/1

II

(Preparatory Acts)

COMMISSION

for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting
Proposal
definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain zinc oxides originating in the
People's Republic of China

(2002/C 262 E/01)

COM(2002) 76 final

(Submitted by the Commission on 13 February 2002)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

The anti-dumping investigation concerning imports into the Community of certain zinc oxides originating
in the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’) was initiated by the Commission on 20 December 2000.

By Regulation (EC) No 1827/2001, a provisional anti-dumping duty was imposed in September 2001.

The attached proposal for a Council Regulation is based on the definitive findings of dumping, injury,
causation and Community interest which confirmed that the provisional anti-dumping measures were
warranted. In view of the fact that some of the Chinese producers that have an individual duty export
via trading companies, it is proposed that these producers make regular reports to the Commission. This is
to ensure that the individual duty rates are only applied to zinc oxide produced by them.

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation, which should be
published in the Official Journal of the European Communities no later than 16 March 2002.

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Guangxi
Nonferrous
Liuzhou
Import & Export Co., Ltd, Liuzhou

Metals

Smelting

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Rickeed Industries Ltd, Hong Kong

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,

Yinli Import and Export Co. Ltd, Liuzhou,

as well as at a related domestic company:

Gredmann Guangzhou Ltd, Guangzhou.

B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE

Whereas:

A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES

(1) The Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 1827/2001 (2)
(‘provisional Regulation’),
imposed a provisional anti-
dumping duty on imports of certain zinc oxides orig-
inating in the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’).

provisional

(3) Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and
considerations on the basis of which it was decided to
several
impose
interested parties
In
accordance with the provisions of Article 20(1) of Regu-
lation (EC) No 384/96 (‘basic Regulation’), all interested
parties who requested a hearing were granted an oppor-
tunity to be heard by the Commission.

anti-dumping measures,
submitted comments in writing.

(2) In addition to the verification visits undertaken at the
premises of
as
exporting producers
mentioned in recital (7) of the provisional Regulation, it
should be noted that verification visits were also carried
out at the premises of a number of related export sales
companies, namely:

in the

PRC,

(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 248, 18.9.2001, p. 17.

(4) The Commission continued to seek and verify all
information deemed necessary for the definitive findings.

(5) 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.

C 262 E/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.10.2002

(6) The oral and written arguments submitted by the parties
were considered and, where deemed appropriate,
the
findings have been changed accordingly.

(7) Having reviewed the provisional findings on the basis of
the information gathered since then, it is concluded that
the main findings as set out in the provisional Regulation
are hereby confirmed.

C. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

1. Product concerned

(8) Subsequent to the publication of the provisional Regu-
lation, a number of interested parties claimed that the
definition of
the product concerned was not correct.
They argued that different grades of zinc oxide existed
on the market, which according to their purity, had
different properties and applications. As a result, these
various grades of zinc oxide could not be considered as
a homogenous product. In addition,
it was argued that
interchangeability between the
insufficient
there was
various grades of zinc oxide. Whilst it was accepted that
higher purity grades could theoretically be used in all
applications, the same could not be said of lower purity
grades because of the level of impurities they contain.

(9) The fact that interchangeability may only be one-way due
to different levels of purity between certain of the grades
is not considered to be sufficient evidence in itself that the
same grades constitute different products which should be
treated separately for the purposes of the investigation.
On the contrary, the fact that high purity grades can be
used in all the various applications of zinc oxide demon-
the grades can be considered as one
strates that all
If certain users accept a higher content of
product.
impurities
is mostly on the basis of price
this
considerations.

(10) Therefore, the comments made by the interested parties
are not in any way sufficient to lead to a change of earlier
findings, as set out in recital (11) of the provisional Regu-
lation, that all grades of the product concerned should be
considered as a single product.

while Community producers almost exclusively used the
‘indirect’ or French process. The direct process is so called
because it produces zinc oxide directly from oxidised zinc
materials. It was claimed that these raw materials were
than the refined zinc metal and other zinc
cheaper
residues that are used in the indirect process.

(13) In the first instance, the question concerning the different
production processes is not considered relevant in the
current investigation as zinc oxides produced by either
process share the same basic chemical characteristics
significant
(ZnO)
proportion of
sales made by the Community
industry is obtained from the direct process and the
costs related to both processes have been taken into
account in the investigation.

Furthermore,

properties.

and

the

a

(14) No new elements were brought to the attention of the
Commission to lead it to alter the conclusions reached at
the provisional stage, namely that the zinc oxide produced
and sold by Community producers and that produced in
the PRC and exported to the Community are a like
product.

(15) The provisional findings concerning the like product as
set out in recitals (12) to (14) of the provisional Regu-
lation are hereby confirmed.

D. DUMPING

1. Market economy treatment

(16) Some Chinese producers questioned the

(18) of

consistency
(‘MET’)
between granting market economy treatment
the provisional Regulation) and the
(recital
subsequent
refusal by the Commission to use prices
paid by the company in question for the zinc raw
material
the provisional Regulation).
According to these companies MET should not have
been granted given that the Commission found that the
zinc raw material prices, the main cost element, did not
reflect market values within the meaning of Article 2(7)(c)
of the basic Regulation.

(47) of

(recital

(11) The findings, as set out in recitals (9) to (11) of the
provisional Regulation, with regard to the product
concerned are hereby confirmed.

2. Like product

(12) Certain interested parties claimed that producers of zinc
oxide in the Community and the PRC used dissimilar
production processes that gave zinc oxide produced in
the PRC significant cost advantages in terms of raw
material and other costs. They suggested that Chinese
producers mainly used the ‘direct’ or American process

(17) During the second and more detailed on-spot investi-
gation, by which the reply to the exporters' questionnaire
the
was verified and after MET had been granted,
Commission found that certain cost elements,
the
i.e.
prices paid for the zinc raw material, were unreliable.
The Commission, therefore, adjusted the costs by basing
them on zinc quotations as quoted on the London Metal
Exchange (‘LME’). It is normal practice to adjust costs if it
appears that they are not accurate, reliable or in line with
normal market conditions. The claim is therefore rejected
and the findings in recitals (15) to (24) of the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.

29.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 262 E/3

2. Individual treatment

(18) In the absence of any comments under this heading, the
provisional findings, as set out in recitals (25) to (27) of
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

3. Normal value

Determination of normal value for exporting producers not
granted MET

Selection of the analogue country

(19) The Community zinc oxide users contested the choice of
the United States of America (‘USA’) as an appropriate
analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal
value, arguing that costs in the PRC and the USA are
different. This particular issue was already dealt with in
detail in recitals (28) to (36) of the provisional Regulation
and is hereby confirmed.

(20) In the absence of any new comments under this heading,
the provisional findings, as set out in recitals (37) to (39)
of the provisional Regulation, are hereby confirmed.

Determination of normal value for exporting producers granted
MET

(21) The ‘users’, as well as some of the Chinese producers,
claimed that the Chinese zinc raw material prices were
determined by the Chinese market and should, therefore,
be considered without making adjustments in accordance
with the LME zinc quotations. As explained in recitals
(46) and (47) of the provisional Regulation, the prices
for supply and demand of zinc or zinc related products
in market economy countries worldwide are based on
it should be noted
LME zinc quotations. Furthermore,
that when selling or purchasing zinc concentrate on the
international market, Chinese companies use the LME as
reference like any other operator. For reasons of reliability
of costs, the Chinese prices for zinc raw materials had to
be adjusted as these costs did not fully reflect the impact
of LME zinc quotations. The claims have, therefore, to be
rejected and the methodology used for the adjustment of
zinc raw material prices through LME zinc quotations is
hereby confirmed.

the

that

requested

(22) After the publication of the provisional Regulation, one of
the Chinese producers
above-
mentioned adjustment to the zinc raw material cost be
made to the price of zinc concentrates rather than to the
price of zinc calcine on the grounds that its production
process began with zinc concentrates. This issue was
in
re-examined and it was found that
question did indeed purchase zinc concentrates but
subcontracted the production of
stage of
production, i.e. the production of zinc calcine from zinc
to a third party. The investigation also
concentrates,
in part
the company produced at
revealed that

the producer

the next

least

from zinc calcine it had purchased on the Chinese
market and that had to be adjusted as outlined above.
In view of the concern to arrive at a market value for
the raw materials and given that
the company in
question's own production process actually began with
zinc calcine, the company's claim could not be accepted
and the methodology described in the provisional Regu-
lation had to be confirmed.

(23) Another Chinese producer claimed that in constructing its
normal value, the figure for selling, general and adminis-
trative expenses (‘SG & A’) was incorrect and submitted
information in support of this claim. It was found that
the claim was justified and the figures were corrected
accordingly.

(24) One company claimed that the SG & A for domestic sales
of all products should be used instead of the specific
the product concerned.
SG & A for domestic sales of
This claim could not be accepted. The purpose of
constructing a normal value is to calculate a surrogate
for the domestic price of the like product. The SG & A
used in this
to the
calculation should thus
relate
like product on the
production and sales of
domestic market of the country of origin, as provided
for
the basic Regulation. The
company's claim had therefore to be rejected and the
initial findings are hereby confirmed.

in Article 2(6) of

the

the

treated

investigation revealed that

(25) The Chinese producers which were granted MET claimed
that the profit made by sales of by-products generated
from the manufacture of zinc calcine and/or zinc oxide
should be deducted from the manufacturing costs of zinc
the
oxide. However
in their
by-products
companies
accounts. The profit on these by-products fluctuated
substantially in time and was shown separately as extra-
ordinary income in their accounts. The companies never
considered any return on the sales of by-products as a
credit towards the cost of zinc oxide. This approach was
also followed for the purposes of the provisional findings.
The claim has consequently been rejected and the
provisional findings are hereby confirmed.

separately

(26) Moreover, they also claimed that in order to establish the
level of profit in the calculation of the constructed normal
value, the Commission should refer to the Community
producers' profit instead of referring to the profit made
by the producer in the analogue country. Article 2(7)(a) of
the basic Regulation provides that the normal value is
the price or constructed
determined on the basis of
value in a market economy third country,
in this case
the USA. Other methods of establishing normal value
are only considered when the relevant analogue country
data are not available. The use of
the Community
producers' profit margin should therefore be rejected.

C 262 E/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.10.2002

(27) One Chinese producer

claimed that direct

selling
expenses, relating to exports only, were included in the
SG & A expenses relating to domestic sales. This claim
was substantiated and found to be justified. The calcu-
lations have consequently been corrected.

(28) Concerning the methodology described in recitals (40) to
these findings are

the provisional Regulation,

(47) of
hereby confirmed.

4. Export prices

(29) One Chinese producer claimed that in the calculation of
export prices certain expenses had been deducted twice.
The claim was verified and accepted and a correction was
made accordingly.

(30) In the absence of any other comments under this heading,
the provisional findings, as set out in recital (48) of the
provisional Regulation, are hereby confirmed.

For all other exporting producers

(34) The level of dumping provisionally established at 69,8 %
of the cif Community frontier price is hereby confirmed.

E. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

(35) Certain parties claimed that on the basis of recital (57) of
the provisional Regulation, it appeared that 15 out of 21
zinc oxide producers in the Community did not cooperate
in the investigation. It was therefore suggested that the
complaint did not meet the requirements of Article 5(4)
of the basic Regulation. It should be recalled that the six
producers who did cooperate in the investigation repre-
sented a major part of Community zinc oxide production
in the investigation period, 1 January to 31 December
2000 (‘IP’), in this case, more than 75 % of the production
thereby satisfying the
of
requirements of Article 5(4). In the absence of any new
information submitted with respect to the definition of
the Community industry,
in
recitals (57) to (59) of the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.

the 21 known companies,

the findings as set out

5. Comparison

(31) In the absence of any comments under this heading, the
provisional findings, as set out in recitals (49) and (50) of
the provisional Regulation, are hereby confirmed.

F. INJURY

1. Preliminary remarks

6. Dumping margins

For the cooperating exporting producers granted MET and indi-
vidual treatment (‘IT’)

(36) In the absence of any arguments to the contrary, the
methodology used for establishing the level of imports
of the product concerned into the Community as set
out in recital (60) of the provisional Regulation and that
used to determine Community consumption of zinc oxide
(recitals (62) and (63)) is hereby confirmed.

and/or

and that

the volume of

(32) One Chinese producer claimed that its dumping calcu-
lation should be based on sales
costs of
ownproduced products, both for normal value and for
zinc oxide
exports,
purchased from other producers
should be excluded
from the cost calculations. This claim was verified in
more detail and it was possible to isolate the transactions
in question. The argument was consequently accepted and
a new calculation has been made limited to the sales
and/or costs of zinc oxide produced by the company
itself.

the

2. Situation of the Community industry

(37) In accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation,
the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on
the Community industry included an evaluation of all
relevant
factors and indices having a bearing on the
state of the Community industry.

(33) The

definitive weighted

dumping margins
expressed as a percentage of the CIF Community price
duty unpaid for the product produced by the following
manufacturers are:

average

Liuzhou Nonferrous Metals
Smelting Co. Ltd

Liuzhou Fuxin Chemical Industry
Co. Ltd

Gredmann Guigang Chemical Ltd

Liuzhou Longcheng Chemical
General Plant

6,9 %

11,0 %

19,3 %

64,5 %

that

argued

on injury. They

(38) Certain interested parties questioned the Commission's
certain
conclusions
information relating to the operating performance of the
Community industry,
such as production, production
capacity and utilisation levels, contained in the non-confi-
dential version of the complaint and the replies to the
Commission's questionnaires showed either increasing or
stable trends. One interested party also claimed that the
Commission's findings were erroneous, as the data used in
recital (82) of the provisional Regulation concerning cash
flow were incomplete. The same interested parties also
pointed to the fact that some of the parent companies
of the entities forming the Community industry recorded
such the
substantial profits
Community industry did not
injury
within the meaning of Article 3 of the basic Regulation.

in the IP and that as

suffer material

29.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 262 E/5

(39) These arguments could not be accepted.

the overall

In the first
instance, these interested parties based their claims on
partial
information concerning only certain members of
the Community industry. They did not take into account
the results of the Commission's investigation as set in
recitals (72) to (89) of the provisional Regulation that
represent
the Community
it is to be recalled that the current
industry. Secondly,
to the product
investigation is
the provisional
concerned as defined in recital
Regulation. Whilst it is true that the parent companies
of certain members of the Community industry recorded
profits during the IP, the overall level of profitability for
their zinc oxide activities in the Community was negative
in this period as set out in recital (77) of the provisional
Regulation.

limited in scope

situation of

(9) of

(40) As regards the cash flow information detailed in recital
(82) of the provisional Regulation, it is acknowledged that
some entities forming the Community industry were not
able to supply detailed information concerning their zinc
oxide activities. However, the entities, which were able to
do so, and whose verified information was used by the
findings
Commission to arrive
accounted for over 80 % of
the
Community industry in the IP. The verified data were
therefore considered to be representative of the situation
of the Community industry as a whole.

the production of

their provisional

at

3. Developments occurring before and after the IP

(41) A number of interested parties, in particular users of the
product concerned, asked the Commission to broaden the
their analysis and take into account devel-
scope of
opments occurring both before the beginning of
the
analysis period (1 January 1996 to 31 December 2000)
and after the end of the IP. They argued that the years
1993, 1994 and 1995 should be considered in order to
the market. They also
have a better appreciation of
claimed
taking
falling zinc metal prices after the IP to
advantage of
increase their margins and that as such, the imposition
of measures was unwarranted.

that Community

producers were

(42) It should be recalled that Article 6(1) of the basic Regu-
lation provides that information relating to a period after
the IP should, normally, not be taken into account. The
information provided by the interested parties concerning
events occurring after the IP, consisting principally of
references to the fall in the zinc quotation on the LME,
did not give any basis on which it could be said that the
findings reached in the investigation were no longer valid.
Indeed, the investigation established that under normal
in zinc oxide market
market conditions,
followed the
raw material prices and
mostly the LME zinc quotation. Fluctuations in prices
and costs in the zinc oxide business were therefore
linked to the LME quotation and developments which
occurred after the IP were simply a manifestation of the
normal functioning of the market and it could not be said
that there had been any change of a structural nature in
the market which made it manifestly unsuitable to base
findings on data relating to the IP. The request to take

evolution of

the prices

events occurring after the IP into account is therefore
rejected.

(43) Similarly, it should be recalled that the findings regarding
information
injury were established on the basis of
relating to the IP. The purpose of presenting data
relating to earlier years is to better understand the IP
and place it in context by showing the development of
the presentation of data
trends.
relating to the four years preceding the IP (1996-1999)
is sufficient for this purpose. The claim to widen the
analysis period to include 1993, 1994 and 1995 is
therefore rejected.

is considered that

It

4. Conclusion on injury

(44) Given that no other arguments were received regarding
the injury suffered by the Community industry,
the
conclusion that it has suffered material injury within the
meaning of Article 3 of the basic Regulation, as detailed
in recitals (72)-(89) of
is
hereby confirmed.

the provisional Regulation,

G. CAUSATION

1. General comments on the Commission's con-

clusions regarding causality

(45) One interested party argued that

the alleged injury
suffered by the Community industry was the result of
factors other than the imports concerned although these
other factors were not specified. It was claimed that the
Community industry had managed to maintain its
production levels and raise its prices during the analysis
period in spite of the dumped imports. Another interested
party argued that the provisional Regulation failed to take
proper account of the depreciation of the euro against the
US dollar in the second half of the analysis period and
that this factor, rather than the imports from the PRC,
was responsible for the injury suffered by the Community
industry.

(46) In view of the fact that the first interested party gave no
other factors which it considered could be responsible for
the injury suffered by the Community industry, this claim
adds nothing new to the investigation and should
therefore be rejected.

(47) With regard to the issue of the depreciation of the euro
against the dollar raised by the other interested party, it
was accepted in recital (61) of the provisional Regulation
that this may have magnified the increase in the cost of
zinc as a raw material. This could have had an adverse
effect on the financial performance of certain Community
producers as the LME quotation is made in dollars
whereas the majority of their sales are made in euro.
However, it is to be recalled that, at this same time, the
Community industry was, to a certain degree, able to
increase its selling prices to reflect the increase in its
cost of production. The fact that this increase did not
fully reflect the increase in the cost of zinc as quoted
on the LME shows the price suppressing effect of the
dumped imports on the selling prices of the Community
industry during the IP. Indeed, in the IP, the volume of
imports from the PRC reached record levels and obtained

C 262 E/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.10.2002

It

those of

the Community industry.

a market share of 18,4 % as their prices significantly
undercut
is also
noted that imports from other third countries decreased
during the analysis period and had a market share of
7,3 % in the IP. It is not unreasonable to conclude that
without the dumped imports, the Community industry
fully, passed on the
could have
almost
increased costs. The claim that
the dumped imports
were not
the injury suffered by the
Community industry is therefore rejected.

responsible for

fully, or

(48) In view of the above considerations and given that no
other valid arguments were
received regarding the
possible cause of the injury suffered by the Community
industry, it is hereby confirmed that the dumped imports
of zinc oxide originating in the PRC caused injury to the
Community industry.

H. COMMUNITY INTEREST

(49) Following the publication of the provisional Regulation,
the Commission received a large number of letters with
identical texts from users of zinc oxide in the Spanish
ceramic tile industry, principally the manufactures of
frits, enamels and glazes and the producers of ceramic
tiles. Many of these companies had not previously made
themselves known to the Commission or cooperated in
the investigation although it is to be recalled that their
respective trade associations had made representations.

(50) These users raised a number of points concerning the
definition of the product concerned, the choice of the
analogue country and the financial performance of the
Community industry, which have already been addressed
above.

(51) Their comments on the Community interest aspects of the
investigation can be summarised into two main areas. The
first area concerns the loss of competitiveness that an
increase in the cost of zinc oxide would have on their
financial performance and the consequences for continued
investment in manufacturing frits and ceramic tiles in the
Community. The second area concerns the manner in
which the Commission took account of the balance of
interests of the various interested parties when making
its assessment of the overall Community interest. They
the Commission had unfairly focussed on
argued that
the
in the
Community industry during the analysis period and had
failed to reflect
jobs that had been
created in the ceramic industry during the same period.
However, no evidence was submitted in support of the
aforementioned allegations.

relatively small number of

the thousands of

job losses

(52) The representations received from these interested parties,
both after the publication of the provisional Regulation
facts and
and following disclosure of
considerations on which it was proposed to impose
definitive anti-dumping duties, did not add any new
elements or evidence that had not already been taken
into account. Consequently,
there
are no compelling reasons not to impose measures, as

the conclusion that

the essential

set out in recital (151) of the provisional Regulation is
hereby confirmed.

I. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

1. Injury elimination level

(53) A number of

claimed that

interested parties

the
Commission did not make a fair price comparison
between the zinc oxide originating in the PRC and that
produced by the Community industry since most of the
Chinese oxide was produced with the American process
and was of a low quality.

(54) This argument is not correct. Indeed, a comparison of
sales prices on the Community market during the IP
was made between prices of
the Community industry
the cooperating exporting producers on
and those of
the basis of comparable grades and level of trade (prices
to independent dealers/importers). Such a fair comparison
was made both for the purposes of establishing the injury
margin and for the undercutting calculation.

(55) These comparisons between the zinc oxide produced by
the Community industry and that exported to the
Community by the Chinese exporting producers, were
made on the basis of the same range of zinc oxide (i.e.
a zinc oxide produced by the direct process with a zinc
oxide content between 95 % and 99,8 %).

(56) In the absence of any other claim, the methodology for
calculating the injury margins as set out in recital (154)
and (155) of
the provisional Regulation is hereby
confirmed.

(57) As regards the determination of the non-injurious price, it
was found that certain products of one Community
producer were wrongly
cost of
production table, in a high quality grade and these were
appropriately reclassified. This had the effect of slightly
lowering the non-injurious price and margins previously
found.

classified,

in the

2. Form and level of the duties

the four cooperating exporting producers in
(58) Three of
China
either
exported their manufactured products
directly or via their respective related trading companies.
However,
the related
the investigation revealed that
trading companies also exported zinc oxide which they
had purchased from producers which did not cooperate in
the investigation. Only the zinc oxide products manu-
factured by the producing companies can benefit from
the
each
producer concerned. The fourth producer sold part of
involved in the
its production to another producer
proceeding. Furthermore given the substantial
level of
non-cooperation (35 %) and the fact that the non-coop-
erating producers also exported via the same related
special
traders,

dumping margin calculated

considered that

exceptionally

specific

for

is

it

29.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 262 E/7

provisions are needed in this case to ensure the proper
application of the anti-dumping duty.

invoice, which shall

(59) These special provisions include the presentation to the
customs authorities of
the Member States of a valid
conform to the
commercial
requirements set out in the Annex to the Regulation.
Only imports accompanied by such an invoice shall be
declared under the applicable Taric additional codes of the
producer in question. Imports not accompanied by such
an invoice shall be made subject to the residual anti-
dumping duty applicable to all other exporters. The
companies concerned have also been invited to submit
regular reports to the Commission in order to ensure a
their sales of zinc oxide to the
proper follow up of
Community. In cases where reports are not submitted,
or where the reports disclose that the measures are not
adequate to eliminate the effects of injurious dumping, it
may be necessary to initiate an interim review in
accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.

(60) The corrections made to the dumping and injury margins
had no effect on the application of the lesser duty rule
and therefore the methodology used for establishing the
anti-dumping duty rates as described in recitals (156) to
(159) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.

3. Definitive collection of provisional duties and

other provisions

(61) In view of the magnitude of the dumping found for the
exporting producers, and in the light of the seriousness of
the injury caused to the Community industry,
is
considered necessary that the amounts secured by way
of provisional anti-dumping duties shall be collected at
the rate of the duty definitively imposed. As the definitive
duties are lower than the provisional duties, the amounts
secured in excess of that level should be released.

it

(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 Commission 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 change in the
production and sales entities. The Commission, if appro-
priate, will, after consultation of the Advisory Committee,
amend the Regulation accordingly by updating the list of
companies benefiting from individual duty rates,

that name change or

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION

Article 1

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on
1.
imports of zinc oxide (chemical formula: ZnO) with a purity
of not
falling within CN code
ex 2817 00 00 (TARIC code 2817 00 00 11) and originating
in the People's Republic of China.

less than 93 % zinc oxide,

The rate of definitive anti-dumping duty applicable,
2.
before duty, to the net, free-at-Community frontier price of
the products manufactured by the following companies, shall
be as follows, provided that they are imported in conformity
with paragraph 3:

Company

Definitive duty
(%)

TARIC
additional code

Liuzhou Nonferrous Metals Smelting
Co., Ltd
17 Baiyun Road, Liuzhou City
545006 Guangxi Province, China

Liuzhou Fuxin Chemical
Ltd
16-90 Xihuan Road, Liuzhou
545007 Guangxi Province, China

Industry Co.

Gredmann Guigang Chemical Ltd
Development Zone for Enterprises with
Foreign Investment (Batang Maijiupo)
Guigang City
537100 Guangxi Province, China

Liuzhou Longcheng Chemical General
Plant
Luowei Horticultural Farm, Liuzhou
Guangxi Province, China

All other companies

6,9

A277

11,0

A278

19,3

A279

26,3

28,0

A280

A999

3.
The application of the individual duty rates specified for
the four companies mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be condi-
tional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the
Member States of a valid commercial
invoice, which shall
conform to the requirements set out in the Annex to the
Regulation.
the duty rate
If no such invoice is presented,
applicable to all other companies shall apply.

Unless otherwise

4.
concerning customs duties shall apply.

specified,

the provisions

in force

Article 2

The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping
duty imposed pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1827/2001 shall
be definitively collected at the rate of the duties definitively
imposed. The amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate
of anti-dumping duties shall be released.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that
of
the European
Communities.

its publication in the Official

Journal of

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

C 262 E/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.10.2002

ANNEX

The valid commercial invoice must include a signed declaration in the following format:

The name of the official of the company that has issued the commercial invoice and the following signed declaration:

‘I, the undersigned, certify that the goods sold for export to the European Community and covered by this invoice:

1. were manufactured by (company name and address)

2. have a zinc oxide content of (precise %)

3. have a volume of (tonnes).

I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.’