Council Regulation (EC) No 408/2002 of 28 February 2002 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: 2002-02-28
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, import, originating product, oxide, zinc

5.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 62/7

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 408/2002

of 28 February 2002

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

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 9 thereof,

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

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES

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

exporting producers

In addition to the verification visits undertaken at the
premises of
in the PRC, as
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:

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

(8)

Rickeed Industries Ltd, Hong Kong,

Yinli Import and Export Co. Ltd, Liuzhou,

as well as at a related domestic company:

Gredmann Guangzhou Ltd, Guangzhou.

B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE

anti-dumping measures,

Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and
considerations on the basis of which it was decided to
several
impose provisional
interested parties submitted comments in writing.
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.

(9)

(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)

(5)

(6)

(7)

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

the essential

All parties were informed of
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.

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

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 Regula-
tion are hereby confirmed.

C. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

1. Product concerned

Subsequent to the publication of the provisional Regula-
tion, 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
there was insufficient
interchangeability between the
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.

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 demonstrates that all the grades can be considered
as one product. If certain users accept a higher content
of impurities this is mostly on the basis of price consid-
erations.

L 62/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.3.2002

(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
Regulation, that all grades of the product concerned
should be considered as a single product.

(11)

The findings, as set out
the
provisional Regulation, with regard to the product
concerned are hereby confirmed.

in recitals 9 to 11 of

2. Like product

(12)

(13)

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
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 cheaper than the refined zinc metal and
other zinc residues that are used in the indirect process.

instance,

In the first
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 characteris-
tics (ZnO) and properties. Furthermore, a significant
proportion of
the 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.

(14) No new elements were brought to the attention of the
Commission to lead it to alter the conclusions reached at
the provisional
the zinc oxide
stage, namely that
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 Regulation
are hereby confirmed.

D. DUMPING

(21)

1. Market economy treatment

(16)

Some Chinese producers questioned the consistency
between granting market economy treatment
(‘MET’)
(recital 18 of the provisional Regulation) and the subse-
quent refusal by the Commission to use prices paid by
the company in question for the zinc raw material
(recital 47 of 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.

(17) During the second and more detailed on-site invest-
igation, by which the reply to the exporters' question-
naire was verified and after MET had been granted, the
Commission found that certain cost elements,
i.e. the
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.

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

S e l e c t i o n o f

t h e a n a l o g u e c o u n t r y

(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
the provisional Regulation, are hereby
37 to 39 of
confirmed.

Determination of normal
granted MET

value

for

exporting producers

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 accord-
ance 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 LME zinc quotations. Furthermore, it should be
noted 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 mate-
rials 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.

5.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 62/9

(22) After the publication of the provisional Regulation, one
of the Chinese producers requested that the abovemen-
tioned adjustment to the zinc raw material cost be made
to the price of zinc concentrates rather than to the price
its production
of zinc calcine on the grounds that
process began with zinc concentrates. This issue was
re-examined and it was found that the producer in ques-
tion did indeed purchase zinc concentrates but subcon-
tracted the production of the next stage of production,
i.e. the production of zinc calcine from zinc concen-
trates, to a third party. The investigation also revealed
that the company produced at least in part 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 produc-
tion process actually began with zinc calcine,
the
company's claim could not be accepted and the meth-
odology described in the provisional Regulation had to
be confirmed.

(23) Another Chinese producer claimed that in constructing
its normal value,
the figure for selling, general and
administrative 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
the
sales of all products should be used instead of
specific SG & A for domestic sales of
the product
concerned. 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 calculation should thus relate to the
production and sales of the like product on the domestic
market of the country of origin, as provided for in
Article 2(6) of
the basic Regulation. The company's
claim had therefore to be rejected and the initial findings
are hereby confirmed.

the Commission should refer

(26) Moreover, they also claimed that in order to establish
the level of profit in the calculation of the constructed
normal value,
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 determined on the basis of the price or
constructed 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
the
Community producers' profit margin should therefore
be rejected.

available. The use of

are not

(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 calcula-
tions have consequently been corrected.

(28)

Concerning the methodology described in recitals 40 to
47 of
these findings are
hereby confirmed.

the provisional Regulation,

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.

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.

6. Dumping margins

(25)

treated by-products

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 oxide. However the investigation revealed that the
companies
separately in their
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 find-
ings. The claim has consequently been rejected and the
provisional findings are hereby confirmed.

For the cooperating exporting producers granted MET and
individual treatment (‘IT’)

the volume of

(32) One Chinese producer claimed that its dumping calcula-
tion should be based on sales and/or costs of own
produced products, both for normal value and for
exports, and that
the zinc oxide
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 transac-
tions
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.

L 62/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.3.2002

(33)

The definitive weighted average dumping margins
expressed as a percentage of the cif (cost,
insurance,
freight) Community price duty unpaid for the product
produced by the following manufacturers are:

2. Situation of the Community industry

Liuzhou Nonferrous Metals Smelting Co. Ltd

6,9 %

Liuzhou Fuxin Chemical Industry Co. Ltd

11,0 %

Gredmann Guigang Chemical Ltd

19,3 %

Liuzhou Longcheng Chemical General Plant

64,5 %

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 coop-
erate 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
represented 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 of the 21 known companies, thereby
satisfying the requirements of Article 5(4).
In the
absence of any new information submitted with respect
to the definition of the Community industry, the find-
ings as set out in recitals 57 to 59 of the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.

F. INJURY

1. Preliminary remarks

(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.

(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.

(38)

(39)

Commission's

questionnaires

Certain interested parties questioned the Commission's
conclusions on injury. They argued that certain informa-
tion relating to the operating performance of
the
Community industry, such as production, production
capacity and utilisation levels, contained in the non-
confidential version of the complaint and the replies to
the
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 Regula-
tion concerning cash flow were incomplete. The same
interested parties also pointed to the fact that some of
the parent companies of
forming the
Community industry recorded substantial profits in the
IP and that as such the Community industry did not
suffer material injury within the meaning of Article 3 of
the basic Regulation.

the entities

showed

the overall

These arguments could not be accepted.
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 out
in recitals 72 to 89 of the provisional Regulation that
the Community
represent
industry. Secondly, it is to be recalled that the current
to the product
investigation is
limited in scope
concerned as defined in recital 9 of
the provisional
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 nega-
tive in this period as set out in recital 77 of the provi-
sional Regulation.

situation 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 at
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

5.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 62/11

3. Developments occurring before and after the IP

in recitals 72 to 89 of the provisional Regulation,
hereby confirmed.

is

(41) A number of interested parties, in particular users of the
product concerned, asked the Commission to broaden
the scope of their analysis and take into account devel-
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
have a better appreciation of the market. They also
claimed that Community producers were taking advan-
tage of falling zinc metal prices after the IP to increase
their margins and that, as such, the imposition of meas-
ures was unwarranted.

(42)

(43)

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 prin-
cipally 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 market conditions, the prices in zinc oxide
market followed the evolution of raw material prices
and mostly the LME zinc quotation. Fluctuations in
prices and costs in the zinc oxide business were there-
fore 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 unsuit-
able to base findings on data relating to the IP. The
request to take events occurring after the IP into account
is therefore rejected.

it

the

should be

recalled that

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

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

G. CAUSATION

1. General comments on the Commission's conclu-

sions 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 inter-
ested 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.

of

on

the

financial

performance

(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
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 a
market share of 18,4 % as their prices significantly
undercut those of the Community industry. It 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
could have fully, or almost fully, passed on the increased
costs. The claim that the dumped imports were not
responsible for the injury suffered by the Community
industry is therefore rejected.

L 62/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.3.2002

(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,
the dumped
is hereby confirmed that
imports of zinc oxide originating in the PRC caused
injury to the Community industry.

it

(49)

(50)

(51)

(52)

H. COMMUNITY INTEREST

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.

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.

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
the various interested parties
when making its assessment of the overall Community
interest. They argued that the Commission had unfairly
focussed on the relatively small number of job losses in
the Community industry during the analysis period and
had failed to reflect the thousands of jobs that had been
created in the ceramic industry during the same period.
However, no evidence was submitted in support of the
aforementioned allegations.

interests of

representations

received from these

The
interested
parties, both after the publication of the provisional
Regulation and following disclosure of the essential facts
and 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, the conclusion that there
are no compelling reasons not to impose measures, as
set out in recital 151 of the provisional Regulation, is
hereby confirmed.

I. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

1. Injury elimination level

(53) A number of

interested parties claimed that

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)

(55)

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 and
those of the cooperating exporting producers on 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.

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 recitals 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 classified, in the cost-of-produc-
tion table, in a high quality grade and these were appro-
priately reclassified. This had the effect of
slightly
lowering the non-injurious price and margins previously
found.

2. Form and level of the duties

(58)

Three of the four cooperating exporting producers in
China exported their manufactured products either
directly or via their respective related trading companies.
the related
the investigation revealed that
However,
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
specific dumping margin calculated for
producer concerned. The fourth producer sold part of its
involved in the
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
traders, it is exceptionally considered that special provi-
sions are needed in this case to ensure the proper
application of the anti-dumping duty.

(59)

These special provisions include the presentation to the
customs authorities of the Member States of a valid
commercial invoice, which shall conform to the require-
ments set out in the Annex to the Regulation. Only

5.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 62/13

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
proper follow up of their sales of zinc oxide to the
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 accord-
ance 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 estab-
lishing the anti-dumping duty rates as described in reci-
tals 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, it 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 defin-
itive duties are lower than the provisional duties, the

amounts secured in excess of
released.

that

level should be

(62) Any claim requesting the application of these individual
following a
company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g.
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 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 accord-
ingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from
individual duty rates,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

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

than 93 % zinc oxide,

less

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

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

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

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

Definitive duty
(%)

TARIC additional
code

6,9

A277

11,0

A278

19,3

A279

26,3

A280

All other companies

28,0

A999

3.
The application of the individual duty rates specified for the four companies mentioned in paragraph
2 shall be conditional 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. If no such invoice is
presented, the duty rate applicable to all other companies shall apply.

4.

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

L 62/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.3.2002

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.

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

Article 3

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

Done at Brussels, 28 February 2002.

For the Council

The President

A. ACEBES PANIAGUA

ANNEX

The valid commercial

invoice must include a signed declaration in the following format:

the name of the official of the company which 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.’