Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of sulphanilic acid originating in the People's Republic of China and India
Date: 2002-07-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, India, acid, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, anti-subsidy proceeding, chemical product, countervailing charge, import, originating product

C 262 E/398

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.10.2002

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

(2002/C 262 E/27)

COM(2002) 373 final

(Submitted by the Commission on 9 July 2002)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

The present anti-dumping investigation concerning imports into the Community of sulphanilic acid
originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’) and India was initiated by the Commission on
6 July 2001. A parallel anti-subsidy investigation concerning imports of the same product originating
in India was initiated on the same date.

Provisional anti-dumping and countervailing duties were imposed on 3 April 2002 by Regulation (EC) No
575/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 573/2002.

The attached proposal for a Council Regulation is based on the definitive findings concerning dumping,
injury, causation and Community interest. These definitive findings have confirmed that the provisional
anti-dumping measures were warranted.

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 3 August 2002.

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

provisional countervailing duty on imports of sulphanilic
acid originating in India.

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE

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,

(2) Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and
considerations on the basis of which it was decided to
impose provisional anti-dumping measures, a number of
interested parties submitted comments in writing. All
interested parties who requested a hearing were granted
an opportunity to be heard by the Commission.

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

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

Whereas:

A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES

(1) The Commission by Regulation (EC) No 575/2002 (2)
(‘provisional Regulation’)
imposed a provisional anti-
dumping duty on imports of sulphanilic acid originating
in the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’) and India. The
(EC) No 573/2002 (3)
Commission by Regulation
(‘provisional anti-subsidy Regulation’) also imposed a

(4) 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.

(5) The oral and written arguments submitted by the parties

were taken into account.

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

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

(2) OJ L 87, 4.4.2002, p. 28, as corrected by corrigenda of 6.4.2002,

OJ L 91, p. 52 and 11.4.2002, OJ L 94, p. 34.

(3) OJ L 87, 4.4.2002, p. 5.

(6) 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 confirmed.

29.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 262 E/399

C. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

1. Product concerned

the

technical

(7) Subsequent to the publication of the provisional Regu-
lation, a number of interested parties claimed that the
definition of the product concerned was incorrect. They
argued that
and purified grades of
sulphanilic acid were substantially different in terms of
their purity and had different properties and applications.
It was claimed that the two grades of sulphanilic acid
could not be considered as a homogeneous product and
should therefore have been treated as distinct products for
the purposes of
this
assertion, it was argued that there was insufficient inter-
changeability between the two grades of sulphanilic acid.
Whilst it was accepted that the purified grade could be
used in all applications, the same could not be said of
technical grade sulphanilic acid because of the level of
impurities it contained, most notably aniline residues.
These impurities consequently made technical grade acid
unsuitable for use in the production of optical brighteners
and food dyes.

the investigation.

In support of

(8) It is recalled that purified grade sulphanilic acid results
from the purification of technical grade sulphanilic acid
in a process which removes certain impurities. This purifi-
cation process does not alter the molecular properties of
the compound or the way in which it reacts with other
chemicals. Therefore, technical and purified grades share
that
the same basic chemical characteristics. The fact
interchangeability may only be in one direction in
certain applications because of concerns about impurities
is therefore not considered to be sufficient justification
that purified and technical grades constitute different
products which should be treated separately in two
different investigations. Whilst accepting that the purifi-
cation process adds certain additional costs
to the
production process,
it is recalled that these were taken
into account when making a fair comparison between
the Community
the different
industry
countries
imported
and
concerned for the purposes of calculating the level of
price undercutting and the injury elimination level.

grades produced by
those

from the

(9) Consequently, it was not considered that the comments
made by interested parties concerning the definition of
the
the product concerned were
to alter
findings on this issue that had been reached at
the
provisional stage.
is therefore definitively concluded
that both grades of sulphanilic acid should be treated as
one single product
the present
proceeding.

the purpose of

sufficient

for

It

2. Like product

(10) No new elements were brought to the attention of the
Commission that would lead it to alter the conclusions

reached at the provisional stage, namely that sulphanilic
acid produced and sold by Community producers and that
produced in the countries concerned and exported to the
Community are like products.

(11) The provisional findings concerning the like product as
set out in recital (12) of the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.

D. DUMPING

1. India

1.1. Normal value

(12) The Indian exporting producer contested the methodology
for the determination of the profit margin used in the
(18)
construction of normal value as set out in recital
of
the
claimed that
opening and closing stocks of the like product should
be taken into account in this determination.

the provisional Regulation.

It

(13) This claim was rejected because the company suggested
taking into account opening and closing stocks only in
determining the profit margin and not in determining the
cost of manufacturing used to calculate the constructed
normal value. Thus, the use of two different costs of
manufacturing
be
accepted. Moreover, the cost of manufacturing used in
calculating normal value in the provisional Regulation
was that incurred during the investigation period (‘IP’)
is not
and was considered more appropriate since it
affected by any ad hoc valuation of stocks.

purpose

cannot

same

the

for

1.2. Export price

(14) The same company claimed that for the sales made via its
related importer, the export price should be constructed
by using the actual profit margin of its related importer.
This claim could not be accepted since the profit margin
realised by the related importer is based on transfer prices
between associated parties (the company in question and
its related importer) and as such these prices cannot be
considered reliable in accordance with Article 2(9) of
Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (‘basic Regulation’).

(15) On the basis of the above, the findings set in recitals (19)
to (21) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

1.3. Comparison

(16) No comments were received under this heading. The
the

findings as
provisional Regulation are therefore confirmed.

to (26) of

in recitals

set out

(22)

C 262 E/400

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.10.2002

1.4. Dumping margin

(17) As no comments were submitted justifying changes to the
dumping findings as set out in the provisional Regulation,
the dumping margin (24,6 %) established in recital (29) of
the provisional Regulation is confirmed.

2. People's Republic of China

2.1. Normal value

(18) As no new information was submitted under this heading,
the findings as set out in recitals (30) to (35) of the
provisional Regulation are confirmed.

2.2. Export price

(19) As no new information was submitted under this heading,
the findings as set out in recitals (36) to (39) of the
provisional Regulation are confirmed.

2.3. Comparison

(20) As no new information was submitted under this heading,
the findings as set out in recital (40) of the provisional
Regulation are confirmed.

2.4. Dumping margin

(21) The dumping margin (21,0 %) established in recitals (41)
and (42) of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.

E. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

(22) Following the publication of the provisional Regulation, a
number of interested parties queried the definition of the
Community industry and its standing in terms of Article
5(4) of the basic Regulation. In particular, it was suggested
that the complainant producer, Sorochimie Chime Fine
did not have the support of
the second Community
producer, Quimigal S.A. when it lodged its complaint.

it did express it support

(23) It is recalled that whilst Quimigal was not a party to the
original complaint,
for the
proceeding at the initiation stage and has fully cooperated
in the investigation. In response to the claims of certain
interested parties, it has also reiterated its support for the
investigation.
proceeding during the
to the
Therefore, as no new elements were brought
attention of the Commission that would lead it to alter
its earlier findings, the provisional findings concerning the
definition of the Community industry and its standing as
detailed in recital (44) of the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.

course of

the

F. INJURY

1. Preliminary remarks

for

acid

(24) Several interested parties questioned the way in which the
imports of
Commission had established figures
into the Community, Community
sulphanilic
consumption and market
shares. They claimed that
there had been insufficient disclosure of the Commission's
in both volume and value
findings regarding imports,
terms, and that consequently their rights of defence had
been impeded. It was noted that some of this information
was also missing from the public version of the complaint
with the result
the
standards detailed in Article 5(2) of the basic Regulation.

the complaint did not meet

that

information which is

(25) It is to be noted that according to Article 19(1) of the
basic Regulation,
submitted in
confidence by parties to an investigation shall be treated
as such by the investigation authority so long as the
is
information concerned warrants such treatment.
recalled that
sulphanilic acid is manufactured by a
relatively small number of producers around the world.
Consequently, it was not possible for reasons of confiden-
tiality to disclose precise information relating to imports
of the product into the Community, especially for those
countries where there is only one exporting producer.
Therefore,
indexed
figures and explanatory narrative were made available to
interested parties concerning this and related items.

the purposes of disclosure,

for

It

(26) As none of the interested parties which raised the issue of
insufficient disclosure were able to demonstrate that the
information made available to them in a summarised
form did not enable them to defend their rights, their
arguments in this respect had to be rejected.

2. Imports concerned

(27) One interested party suggested that the figure for the
increase in imports noted in the provisional Regulation
was misleading. It was claimed that as a number of other
producers had withdrawn from the market, users in the
Community were obliged to purchase sulphanilic acid on
the world market, thereby leading to the sharp rise in
import volumes. This claim had to be rejected for a
number of reasons. In the first instance, no additional
evidence concerning the level of imports was submitted
so as to alter the findings reached at the provisional stage
on this point. Similarly, whilst it was acknowledged in
recital (127) of the provisional Regulation that imports
were expected to continue to play a significant role in
meeting demand in the Community,
it was also noted
that had the Community industry not been subject to
the injurious effects of the dumped imports,
it would
have been able to put
into effect certain expansion
thereby satisfying a larger part of Community
plans,

29.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 262 E/401

demand. In the light of the above, the provisional findings
concerning imports
into the Community from the
countries concerned and their level of price undercutting
as noted in recitals (47) to (54) of the provisional Regu-
lation are confirmed.

3. Situation of the Community industry

(28) 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 economic factors and indices having a bearing
on its state.

(29) Subsequent

to provisional disclosure,

a number of
interested parties questioned the manner in which the
Commission had reached its provisional determination
concerning injury as certain indicators were showing
positive developments.
it was suggested
that the increase in the Community industry's production,
sales and capacity utilisation during the analysis period
(1 January 1997 to 30 June 2001) proved that it had
not suffered injury. One interested party also claimed
that
the Commission had failed to make a proper
assessment of wage costs as required by the Article 3(5)
of the basic Regulation.

In particular,

It

(30) It is recalled that according to Article 3(5) of the basic
Regulation, none of the economic factors or indices listed
in the aforementioned Article shall necessarily be decisive
in the determination of
is indeed true that
injury.
certain indicators relating to quantities produced and
sold by the Community industry showed positive devel-
opments. This should be seen in the light of the fact that
Community consumption of sulphanilic acid increased by
some 13 % during the analysis period and that there has
the number of suppliers on the
been a reduction of
market due
certain Community
closure of
to the
producers.

(31) More

it

should be

importantly,

recalled that

the
Community industry suffered injury in the form of price
depression and price suppression. In particular, its average
selling price declined sharply between 1997 and 1998, as
the
the pressure exerted by the increasing volume of
imports
evident.
concerned on the market became
Subsequently, although the Community industry was
able to increase its average selling price as demand on
failed to
the Community market also increased,
achieve a level which would enable it to cover its full
cost of production and losses continued to be incurred
in the IP.

it

(32) With regard to the argument raised concerning wages, it
is noted that although the number of workers employed
by Sorochimie decreased during the analysis period, the
average employment cost per employee increased. This is

it

due to the fact that there was a change in the mix of
employees during the period and also to general wage
inflation. With regard to Quimigal,
is to be noted
that in the base year for the index (1998) the company
was not producing sulphanilic acid. When it began
production in 1999, the workers were engaged full time
in this activity with an extra day being worked from 2000
onwards. Neither company noted that the wages of those
employed in sulphanilic acid activities had been effected
by the imports concerned. Therefore, wages were not
considered to be an indicator of injury.

(33) In view of the above, the provisional findings that the
Community industry suffered material
injury within the
meaning of Article 3 of the basic Regulation, as detailed
in recitals (57) to (76) of the provisional Regulation, are
confirmed.

G. CAUSATION

1. General

comments

on

the

Commission's

conclusions regarding the causation of injury

(34) Certain interested parties argued that

the

the Community
industry was itself partly responsible for the injury it
had suffered. Several parties questioned the quality of
Sorochimie's management, product and customer service
and highlighted the fact it had itself imported sulphanilic
acid during the analysis period. One party also alleged
that
should be
injury suffered by Sorochimie
attributed to its other business activity (glue) which
experienced significant difficulties during the IP. With
second
regard to the
it
company forming part of
was argued that its decision to enter the market with a
low price strategy during its start-up phase had also
contributed to the alleged injury. Finally,
it was also
claimed that
the Community industry had to meet
and had higher
stringent
labour and transport costs than exporting producers in
India with the implication that
imports originating in
that country had a competitive advantage and were not
made at injurious prices.

the Community industry,

situation of Quimigal,

environmental

regulations

the

(35) The investigation showed that Sorochimie, despite its
financial difficulties linked to the excessively low prices
prevailing on the market, was able to gain new customers
during the analysis period and to adapt its products to
meet their needs. The company was obliged to purchase
certain quantities of the product concerned during the
to meet existing customer
analysis period in order
requirements while
its production equipment was
undergoing essential repairs. It cannot thus be considered
that Sorochimie contributed to its own injury. Similarly, it
is recalled that any exceptional costs relating to the
company's difficulties in its glue business have been
excluded from the current investigation as they are not
linked to the product concerned and thus are not reflected
in the injury indicators described in the provisional Regu-
lation.

C 262 E/402

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.10.2002

(36) It was noted in recital (85) of the provisional Regulation
that Quimigal's decision to enter the market was taken at
a time when prices for sulphanilic acid on the Community
market were higher. Quimigal was able to establish itself
on the market at a time of both increasing demand in the
Community and changes in the number of suppliers of
sulphanilic acid both in the Community and outside. It
was also noted that the company was obliged to offer
prices similar to those of the dumped imports in order
to establish itself on the market and gain market share in
1999 and 2000 in that its relatively small size meant that
it was a price taker rather than a price setter. Never-
its market share decreased slightly in the IP as
theless,
imports
concerned increased in
volume. No indication has therefore been found that the
deterioration of the situation of the Community industry
is due to excessive intra-Community industry competition.

from the

countries

it

(37) With regard to the allegedly higher costs
Community industry is obliged to meet
complying with environmental
items,
should be
advantage of
in
account
Consequently,
causation as set out
provisional Regulation are confirmed.

the
that
in terms of
regulations and other
competitive
the imports concerned was taken into
value.
the
concerning
the

determination
provisional
in recitals (88) and (89) of

recalled that

findings

normal

the

the

of

H. COMMUNITY INTEREST

(38) Following the publication of the provisional Regulation,
one interested party questioned how the Commission
could determine,
in the light of Sorochimie being in
administration, that the Community industry was viable
and competitive. It is recalled that Sorochimie was obliged
to seek protection from its creditors following certain
difficulties in its glue business and other pressures in its
sulphanilic acid activities. The Commercial Court of Char-
leville Mézières has appointed an administrator to oversee
the company's trading activities and has granted the
company a period of time in which to prepare a restruc-
turing plan. This period of
recently been
extended until 31 January 2003. In the absence of other
unforeseen events, the company should continue to be in
existence for the immediate future and therefore be in a
position to benefit
from the imposition of definitive
measures. Consequently, the provisional findings that the
the
is
imposition of measures
Community industry as noted in recital
the
provisional Regulation are confirmed.

interest of
(100) of

time has

in the

(39) A number of

the
Commission had failed to make an objective assessment

interested parties

claimed that

of the situation of users in not taking into account any
increase in the Community industry's prices that would
likely follow the imposition of measures.
It was also
claimed that measures were counter to the Community
interest as the production capacity of the Community
industry was insufficient
to meet Community demand
and a possible duopolistic situation based on the two
Community producers could result from the closure of
the market to imports from India and the PRC.

the main user

(40) In respect of the claim that the Commission failed to take
account of the various interests in an objective manner
when determining whether the imposition of measures
were counter to the Community interest,
it is recalled
that at the provisional stage, the Commission made a
sectors
detailed analysis of each of
(optical brighteners, concrete additives and dyes and
colorant producers). This analysis included an assessment
of the impact of measures on their costs on the basis that
the prices of the imports concerned would increase in line
the same time, due
with the proposed measures. At
allowance was made in this calculation for a maximum
possible increase in the price of sulphanilic acid sold by
the Community industry of 10 % on the basis that its
prices would increase to a level similar to that of the
imports concerned following the imposition of measures
taking into account that it was already operating at a
fairly high rate of capacity utilisation in the IP. As such,
no new elements were submitted by interested parties
findings concerning
which would alter the provisional
the possible increase in the manufacturing costs of the
different user industries.

they

are made

(41) Regarding the supply and competition situation on the
it is to be noted that the current
Community market,
production capacity of
the Community industry could
satisfy in the region of 50 % of Community demand. In
any event, the purpose of the measures is not to close the
market to imports from the countries concerned but to
at non-dumped and
ensure
that
non-injurious prices.
expected that
is
imports from third countries including India and the
PRC will continue to enter the market. At
the same
time, measures should ensure continued sulphanilic acid
production in the Community with the result that users
will have more choice and competition between suppliers.
It should also be stressed that the Community industry
has plans to increase its output by investing in new
facilities if the capital expenditure can be justified. For
this
the dumped
the injurious effects of
imports need to be removed.

to occur,

therefore

It

29.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 262 E/403

(42) In the light of the above, the provisional findings that the
imposition of measures is not contrary to the interest of
the Community as noted in recital
the
provisional Regulation is confirmed.

(130) of

I. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

1. Injury elimination level

(43) The methodology to establish the injury margin as set out
at recitals (131) to (133) of the provisional Regulation is
hereby confirmed.

2. Definitive measures

(44) Since for both India and the PRC the dumping margin has
been found to be lower than the injury elimination level,
the definitive duties to be imposed should correspond to
the dumping margins established,
in accordance with
Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation.

(45) However, with regard to the parallel

India,

anti-subsidy
proceeding in respect of
in accordance with
Article 24(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 (1)
(‘the basic anti-subsidy Regulation’) and Article 14(1) of
the basic Regulation, no product shall be subject to both
anti-dumping and countervailing duties for the purpose of
dealing with one and the same situation arising from
therefore
dumping
necessary to determine whether, and to what extent, the
subsidy amounts and the dumping margins arise from the
same situation.

subsidisation.

export

or

is

It

lower

the Indian exporting producer,

(46) With regard to India, a definitive countervailing duty
corresponding to the amount of subsidy, which was
found to be
injury margin, was
than the
proposed in accordance with Article 15(1) of the basic
anti-subsidy Regulation. Certain of the subsidy schemes
investigated which were found to be countervailable in
India constituted export subsidies within the meaning of
Article 3(4)(a) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation. As
such, these subsidies could only affect the export price
thus leading to an
of
increased margin of dumping.
the
definitive dumping margin established for the sole coop-
erating Indian producer is partly due to the existence of
export
is not
considered appropriate to impose both countervailing
and anti-dumping duties
the
relevant export subsidy amount and dumping margin
the definitive anti-
definitively established. Therefore,
dumping duty should be adjusted to reflect the actual
dumping margin remaining after the imposition of the
definitive countervailing duty offsetting the effect of the
export
anti-
dumping duty rate for India has been set at the level of
the dumping margin (24,6 %) minus the rate of definitive
countervailing duty of the export subsidies (6,3 %).

subsidies. Consequently,

to the full extent of

In other words,

the definitive

circumstances,

subsidies.

In these

it

(1) OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1.

(47) The Government of

India and the Indian exporting
producer opposed this approach and claimed that the
definitive anti-dumping duty should be reduced by the
level of subsidisation found (7,4 %) and not only
total
in
by the amount export subsidies. They argued that
practice any benefit may be used to cross-subsidise any
area of activity the exporter so chooses, which would
mean that if the subsidy is not used to lower the export
prices it should not be countervailed. Alternatively, they
if the subsidy is used to lower domestic prices
argued,
then only part of
that subsidy which enables unfair
export pricing should be countervailed.

(48) In this respect, it is noted that subsidies which are not
contingent upon export performance (‘domestic subsidies’)
are considered to affect equally the export price and the
normal value of the Indian exporting producer, which
means that they have a neutral effect on the margin of
dumping. It is, therefore, concluded that the amounts of
domestic subsidies and the dumping margins do not arise
from the same situation and consequently no adjustment
to the dumping duty is warranted from the existence of
such subsidisation.

(49) For the PRC, the anti-dumping duty rate has been set at

the level of the dumping margin.

3. Definitive collection of provisional duties

(50) 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.

it

J. UNDERTAKING

it

the

requirements

(51) The sole cooperating company in the PRC, Mancheng
Industry Co., Ltd of Baoding
Gold Star Chemical
(‘Mancheng’), has proposed a joint undertaking together
with the State-controlled trading company, Sinochem
Hebei
is
Import & Export Corporation. However,
recalled that Mancheng was a producer which did not
individual
to
meet
treatment because it was not licensed to export and all
its exports were made via the said State-controlled trading
company. Moreover, due to the very low level of coop-
eration obtained from exporting producers in the PRC,
the Commission is not a position to consider further an
undertaking proposed by a trading company because of
the high inherent risk of circumvention of such an under-
taking. The Chinese parties concerned were informed
accordingly.

granted

be

C 262 E/404

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.10.2002

in India of
concerned offered a price undertaking

(52) Subsequent to the imposition of provisional measures, the
the
sole cooperating exporting producer
product
in
accordance with Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation. By
doing so, it agreed to sell the product concerned at or
above price levels which eliminate the injurious effects of
dumping. The company will also provide the Commission
with regular and detailed information concerning its
exports to the Community, meaning that the undertaking
the Commission.
can be monitored effectively by
Furthermore,
exporting
producer is such that the Commission considers that the
risk of circumventing the agreed undertaking is limited.

structure of

sales

the

the

Unless otherwise

4.
concerning customs duties shall apply.

specified,

the provisions

in force

Article 2

Imports under

1.
the following TARIC additional code
which are produced and directly exported (i.e. shipped and
invoiced) by the company named below to a company in the
Community acting as an importer shall be exempt from the
anti-dumping duty imposed by Article 1 provided that they are
imported in conformity with paragraph 2.

(53) In view of this, the offer of an undertaking was accepted

by the Commission in Decision (2002/. . ./EC).

Country

Company

(54) In order to ensure the effective respect and monitoring of
the undertaking, when the request for release for free
circulation pursuant to the undertaking is presented to
the relevant customs authority, exemption from the
duty should be conditional upon presentation of a
commercial
invoice containing the information listed in
the Annex to this Regulation which is necessary for
customs to ascertain that shipments correspond to the
commercial documents at
the required level of detail.
Where no such invoice is presented, or when it does
not correspond to the product concerned presented to
customs,
the appropriate rate of anti-dumping duty
should instead be payable.

(55) It should be noted that in the event of a breach or with-
drawal of the undertaking or a suspected breach, an anti-
dumping duty may be imposed pursuant to Article 8(9)
and (10) of the basic Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.
A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on
falling within CN codes
imports
ex 2921 42 10 (TARIC code 2921 42 10 60) originating in
the People's Republic of China and India.

sulphanilic

acid

of

India

Kokan Synthetics & Chemicals Pvt Ltd,
14 Guruprasad, Gokhale Road (N),
Dadar (W),
Mumbai 400 028, India

TARIC
additional code

A398

Imports mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be exempt from

2.
the duty on condition that:

(i) a commercial invoice containing at least the elements of
the necessary information listed in the Annex is presented
to Member States customs authorities upon presentation of
the declaration for release into free circulation; and

(ii) the goods declared and presented to customs correspond
precisely to the description on the commercial invoice.

Article 3

The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping
duty imposed pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 575/2002 shall
be definitively collected at the rate of the duties definitively
imposed on imports of sulphanilic acid originating in the
People's Republic of China and India, as defined in Regulation
(EC) No 575/2002.

2.
The rate of definitive anti-dumping duty applicable,
before duty, to the net, free-at-Community frontier price of
the products described in paragraph 1, shall be as follows:

The amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-
dumping duties shall be released.

Country

The People's Republic of China

India

Definitive duty
(%)

21,0 %

18,3 %

Article 4

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

its publication in the Official

Journal of

3.
Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the definitive duty shall
not apply to imports released for free circulation in accordance
with Article 2.

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

29.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 262 E/405

ANNEX

Elements to be indicated in the commercial invoice referred to in Article 2(2):

1. The heading ‘COMMERCIAL INVOICE ACCOMPANYING GOODS SUBJECT TO AN UNDERTAKING’.

2. The name of the company mentioned in Article 2(1) issuing the commercial invoice.

3. The commercial invoice number.

4. The date of issue of the commercial invoice.

5. The TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice are to be customs-cleared at the Community

frontier.

6. The exact description of the goods, including:

— the Product Code Number (PCN), i.e. ‘PA99’, ‘PS85’ or ‘TA98’,

— the technical/physical specifications of the PCN, i.e. for ‘PA99’ and ‘PS85’ white free flowing powder, and for

‘TA98’ grey free flowing powder,

— the company product code number (CPC) (if applicable),

— CN code,

— quantity (to be given in tonnes).

7. The description of the terms of the sale, including:

— price per tonne,

— the applicable payment terms,

— the applicable delivery terms,

— total discounts and rebates.

8. Name of the company acting as an importer to which the invoice is issued directly by the company.

9. 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 sale for direct export to the European Community of the goods covered by this
the Undertaking offered by Kokan
invoice is being made within the scope and under
Synthetics & Chemicals Pvt Ltd, 14 Guruprasad, Gokhale Road (N), Dadar (W), Mumbai 400 028,
India, and
accepted by the European Commission through Decision (2002/. . ./EC). I declare that the information provided
on this invoice is complete and correct.’

the terms of